Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wording

"For their part, the historic opponents of early Christians wrote that Christians had the same religion and practice as they, but were too stupid to understand it."

Is there maybe a more elegant way to put this, or is it necessary to write it as such to capture the harshness of the the rhetoric going back and forth between the early Christians and their opponents?

-Annonymous April 7th 2006 7:05pm

Unneccessary rebuttal

The exhaustive rebuttal is unneccesary and shows the extreme bias of whoever wrote it. There is no need for such a extensive list of points attempting to refute the Jesus Myth. It either needs to be removed altogether or severely edited. Starless and bible black 11:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it's unnecessary. They are all referenced, and can be seen as being valid points, in the same way that the arguments in support of the Jesus Myth are. Whilst that section is certainly POV, so is the argument in favour section. The only way that the article as a whole avoids being hopelessly POV is by having both sections presented in full. --Petros471 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The arguments section contains at least two pure strawmen, the arguments from Van Voorst and S-W. The argument on ancient biographies is entirely POV and needs to have a more recent work and more balanced work than the one by a conservative like Burridge -- such as the one by Wills, which was promptly deleted when I put it in there. This entire Jesus Myth page was originally done by a couple of internet apologists for Christianity who wanted to gain control of the material and was POV from top to bottom. -- Michael Turton

• What would be an equivalent article or articles to compare? Starless and bible black 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say the first thing that came to mind is Comparison of web browsers. This may seem like a strange example to quote, however I have seen just how fierce browser wars can be (on the internet in general, not just wikipedia). They can be very similar to debates of a religious nature, and therefore I think that article presenting all sides of the 'argument' in a clear way is a good comparison.

Also taking a look at WP:POV, I quote "Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." I would certainly apply that to this article to mean that both sides of the argument should be fairly, and fully, presented. Also to quote Jimbo Wales from the official policy WP:NPOV "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so."

In the case of this article, it is clear that different people believe different things, and therefore those different things should be presented. --Petros471 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The original article did not fairly represent the Mythicist POV, as it was entirely by Christian apologists. Perhaps we should confine each side to one side of the for/against arguments. --Michael Turton.

Sorry, but I don't agree that the example, Comparison of web browsers, is a good one to support the view that this particular article needs such a large rebuttal. It doesn't. The web browser article is a comparison, and it says so in the title.

This article is about the "Jesus-Myth," not a comparison of views about Jesus. What this article needs is a brief summary of the rebuttals to the Jesus-Myth, and then a sub-heading referring readers to the Historicity of Jesus article, for elaborations on his historical existence - and that article does a far more comprehensive job of discussing that topic.

On the other hand, this article includes a very poor attempt to refute claims of the non-existence of Jesus. Why is it necessary to (poorly) duplicate information? It's easy to link readers elsewhere if they're looking for the other side. Derekwriter 20:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is coming from someone who even believes that the "Jesus-Myth" is total nonsense. I nonetheless believe this article is more credible without the bloated rebuttal. Derekwriter 20:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Josephus References

Someone mentioned that a referenced source on Josephus did not support the assertion. I reviewed the links and do not see a problem. The first reference is to an article by me which clearly discusses the state of the question as to the TF. The second is to Kirby's article which clearly discusses the state of the question as to the second reference ("most have granted that this passage is substantially authentic"). What am I missing? Seriously. Layman 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it Matter 2

Many experts support the conclusions of the 'Does it Matter' revision.Having said that, I will examine the way that it has been written to seek a tone that deals with those part of your objections that are valid.

Some of the texts to consult: When Jesus Became God by Richard E. Rubenstein; Elaine Pagels works on the Gnostic Gospels; Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Hardcover) by Bart D. Ehrman; The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Paperback) by Bart D. Ehrman "Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state of flux..."; Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians (Paperback) by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy; The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (Paperback) by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy; The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason (Vintage) (Paperback) by Charles Freeman

The fact that Christains and Moslems might dispute the entry is not itself an objection, since they have a POV based on faith. The Orthodox religions did evolve from the fusion with the state. Constantine was the emperor of the Eastern Empires from which the Eastern rites evolved. I will have to research the evolution of the Coptic religion.

I appreciate the civility and respect with which the prior discussion was made.

The point about Christians and Muslims is not to show that they are necessarily right, it is to show that it is ridiculous to claim that it does not matter whether Jesus existed. It matters to billions of people because of their faith and to others because it is an important historical question. If Jesus existed, then there would not have been a Christian faith to fuse with the state, so even if you assume that Rome consolidated every Christian community on the planet then you still have not proved that Jesus' existence did not matter.

I remain skeptical that this belongs in this entry and can be rendered NPOV Layman 19:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Also if you look at the arguments used leading up to the first Council of Nicaea in 325, both parties appealed to tradition; both Arians and Orthodox believers insisted that they were most correctly interpreting the Bible, and were most faithfully preserving the teachings of Jesus to the first Apostles. Not only is it important to Christians and Muslims today, but it was important to Christians in the fourth century that there was an historical connection from Jesus to his apostles to their followers. You also need to realize that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion, he only legalized it, and that persecution of Christians resumed in the middle of the fourth century for a while under Julian the Apostate before Theodosius finally made Christianity the state religion around 381 or so. You might also compare and contrast the role of Constantine I in determining the shape of Christianity with the roles of Leo I and Constantine V years later during the iconoclastic controversy. Constantine I just called the bishops together and promised them safe passage, but allowed them to decide. Some scholars even think that Constantine personally favored the Arians, who lost at that council. The "fusion" theory just doesn't fit the facts at all, which is why it remains a fringe theory. (BTW, why is the newer part of the discussion at the top of the page? Wesley 04:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See Constantine I and Christianity for the extent of Constantine's role. Wesley 04:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's well known that Constantine was baptized by Eusebius (an Arian); Arianism and adoptionism are much less difficult to incorporate into the notion of the divine majesty (leaving open the possibility of many humans (rulers) to attain or embody divinity); Arianism was strong in the northern frontier and the Arian Lombards eventually overwhelmed the west; there are reasons to think that if Christianity was endorsed for political reasons, favoring the Arian or gnostic versions would have been more prudent and much easier to merge with pagan preconceptions. But the theory of lost or corrupted history, and the speculations of what might have been, are intriguing enough that they are likely immune to arguments of fact. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

All good points. Some fourth century emperors did favor the Arians, which at least partly accounts for why it took so long to truly defeat them. And the great thing about the corrupted history theory is it seems to give license to invent any number of alternate histories and claim they're perfectly credible because all records of them were supposedly destroyed. Wesley 11:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Does it Matter

There have been two attempts to add this paragraph so I thought I would start a discussion:

"Does It Matter?

Whether an historical person named Jesus was crucified and that event intiated the evolutionary path that developed into the various Christianites that described early Christianity and then ultimately into the orthodox forms that triumphed in the 4th Century or whether there was no historical person from which a variety of disparate groups came to use the same name for their central mythological symbol (the arguments of those who propound the Jesus mystery) probably makes little difference to the most important aspect of understanding the development of Christianity, namely that as a religion it evolved from many strands that were fused together into what became Christianity. This happened as part of merger of Christianity with the Rome into a state sponsored religion. From this predecessor, all existing sects of Christianity have evolved."

This, IMO, is problematic for a number of reasons. It contains several disputed assertions and POV comments as simple statements of fact, such as the supposed "evolutionary path" and variety of "Christianities" and the "triumph" in the 4th Century. It also purports to judge the "most important aspect of understanding" Christianity. Presumably, Christians and Muslims might dispute that the "evolutionary path" is the MOST important aspect of understanding Christianity. It also contains disputed statements of fact about Christianity evolving from "many strands that were fused together" as a result of the "merger of Christianity with the Rome into a state sponsored religion." And is it true that all existing sects of Christianity evolved from the "fusion" of Rome and Christianity? The Armenian Orthodox Church, indeed the entire Orthodox branch, might dispute that. As might the Coptic Christians.

It seems obvious that this paragraph is intended to insert the contributors POV about Christianity as being a hodge-podge of different beliefs hammered into one by state force. What's worse is that it is all stated as accepted fact when much of this is disputed.

Can it be cleaned? Perhaps, if it is stated as the beliefs of some scholars (with references). That way, other contributors could explain that it does matter that Jesus existed and why. Of course, I am still not sure that this entire line of argument is relevant to an entry on the Jesus-Myth. Layman 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of this material, unless a more direct connection to the Jesus Myth can be described. If its assertions of opinion as fact can be adjusted appropriately, it may be more appropriate in a different article - I'm not sure that it exists yet - perhaps called something like Jesus mythology.— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the historicity of Jesus is central to the Christian doctrine. In that sense a section "does it matter" would seem necessary. Such a section would have to expand on the implications for Christianity if no solid evidence for the historical Jesus can be found in independant (non-christian) sources. [[[User:Belvdme|Belvdme]] 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)]

POV 'small'

The reference to a 'small group of scholars' vs. just 'group of scholars' is POV where the word 'small' is used. In trying to remain NPOV, it is necessary to leave the word 'small' out, as this is an opinion of some, but is not shared by the same opinion of others.

How can an accurate descriptive reference be POV? It doesn't say fringe, or tiny, or radical, it just says small. IMO, it would be more misleading to leave the impression that there is even a significant minority of relevant scholars who accept the Jesus Myth as a serious proposal. That may change, but that is the way of it for now. Layman 03:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes small? -BonfireBuddhist

I am not sure what the upperthreshold is but I have no doubt that the Historians and New Testament scholars who adhere to the Jesus Myth represent a small group.

I don't understand. If you are "not sure" what a 'small' group of scholars equates to, how can you "have no doubt" about what a 'small' group of scholars equates to? This then comes down to personal opinion, or a POV. -B

That is not what I said. I said I was not sure what the upperthreshold was but I knew the number of historians and New Testament scholars who held to the viability of the Jesus Myth was small. Anyone knowledgeable about New Testament studies or the history of Christianity would know that the label "small" is actually being generous in describing the Jesus Myth scholars. It is misleading, and therefore POV, to insist that an entry on the Jesus Myth ignore the actual number of scholars who advocate it. Layman 14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

How can I ignore the "actual number of scholars who advocate" the Jesus-Myth, when you have not supplied any information as to the numerical value of 'small'? What is the "actual number of scholars who advocate" the Jesus-Myth? I want to know what a 'small group of scholars' equates to. -B

If you are that ignorant of the state of New Testament scholarship you have no business editing this entry at all. If you are just playing dumb to make your point, then your removal of the accurate adjective is point of view.

I'm not sure about the relevancy of suggesting I have no business editing this entry. Had I not originally [started the Jesus-Myth thread], I strongly doubt that you would have. -B

Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus commented on the modern state of the question: "Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

Is it even remotely possible to think that [Graham Stanton] would say otherwise about Jesus and Christianity et al? -B

More recently, Robert Van Voorst also commented on the modern state of the question in Jesus Outside the New Testament: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

Other than upon examining the remains of a once living creature, nothing can be declared dead. -B

If you have any sources from acadmics stating that the Jesus Myth is advocated by anything other than a small group of scholars, feel free to provide it. Off hand, if I use the term "scholar" generously, I can think of two scholarly advocates of the Jesus Myth, Robert Price and Richard Carrier. Of course, Richard Carrier does not have his doctorate nor has he published an advocacy of the issue in a peer reviewed journal. If you were inclince to count Doherty among them, you have

three. Layman 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And doesn't this fact make the statement in the article "To date, no scholar has answered Doherty's challenge in a formal scholarly format." a little disengenuous. Is there a "Jesus Myth" formulated argument that has been presented in a formal scholarly format in order to respond to same ? 24.193.219.212 09:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com

Well, somebody just offered Westar $5,000 to answer Doherty in an informal format, and the editor wouldn't let them. So I guess you can see why formal formats don't accept such stuff. In any case, since the case for Jesus was so strong, answering Doherty should be child's play. Except, of course, it isn't. -- Michael Turton.

I am not the one making the claim of the POV use of 'small', and as such, neither do I shoulder the burden of proof of showing it is small. If I understand correctly, this is your entire list that constitutes 'small', to which you have no knowledge that even one more scholar holds or held the position that Jesus Christ is a flat out myth, and, upon finding such, would constitute you reconsidering that I may not be ignorant about New Testament scholarship? -B

"[I] knew the number of historians and New Testament scholars who held to the viability of the Jesus Myth was small. [...] the label small is actually being generous" says Layman above. I find this hard to believe! I believe that most professional historians (and I don't mean just biblical scholars) either profess no opinion at all, or think historicity of Jesus Christ is not so clear (unlike, e.g., Paul's or Pilate's or even Muhammad's). I believe that they also think the issue is a can of worms that they'd rather avoid professionally. This belief of mine is just based on talking with a few scholarly friends (not all of them historians) but you can correct me. Come on guys, there must exist some polls, admittedly informal but still informative, settling the issue. Who here works in the History dept at some university and can run an informal poll and let us know? PhS 16:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not what all historians think, but those who publish and specialize in this field. To learn what academics thinkg about issues, we read what experts in the field say about what the state of the question is in their field. Graham Stanton and Robert Van Voorst are very well respected scholars and have told us what historians and NT scholars think. And yes I am restricting "historians" to mean people who specialize in the field. If a historian has never offered an opinion on the historial Jesus, his or her opinion is really not that relevant.

Stanton and Van Voorst are religious conservatives who have no serious publications in the area of historical Jesus. -- Michael Turton.

One such classicist who has written in this area is Michael Grant. His opinion on the status of the Jesus-Myth question.

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Grant, Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels.

The sad part of this is that almost every one of Grant's claims is untrue, as you well know from the many discussions of it at the SecWeb. Ic an see why you came over to Wiki to gain control of this subject, as you couldn't do squat at Infidels. For example, no scholar of the first rank has answered and annihilated any Jesus Myth theory, indeed, most seem like you, Layman, to understand it in terms of either authority-statements or strawmen.--Michael Turton

I await any evidence from a relevant academic who says that the group of scholars who advocates the Jesus Myth is anything but "small." Layman 04:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"The issue is not what all historians think, but those who publish and specialize in this field". OK, this is where I misunderstood what you wrote earlier. But I find your position dangerous. Professional historians may have an informative opinion without specializing in the field, e.g., on the way the standards of their discipline are adhered to. And you can trust them to say when they don't know.

Let me explain my position via a comparison. Of course the comparison is exaggerated but this underlines the issues. Assume I say most biologists do not believe in the Loch Ness monster and you say "only the opinion of professional biologists who specialize in lake monsters is relevant". Superficially, this sounds like good reasoning of the form the opinion of specialists has more weight than the opinion of non-specialists but when it is pushed too far, especially for "can of worms" issues, it can border on begging the question.

You say the opinion of professional historians is irrelevant but what is this opinion? If I read slowly your Grant quote above I am sure not whether he says that their opinion is a huge majority of "historicity of Jesus is as solid as for Pilate or Paul", or he says should be? PhS 14:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Grant quote doesn't appear to be ambiguous to me at all. More importantly, I don't see any citations that might contradict it or the other quote offered in support. Are there any other published assessments of scholarly opinion? If not, it looks like removing the "small" is POV pushing, retaining it is being generous in light of the assessments we have thus far. Wesley 05:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that whatever position someone takes regarding the existence of a deity (in this case "jesus existed!" vs. "jesus never existed!"), such an argument only involves humans, and never any god. BonfireBuddhist 22:25, 05 December 2005

I find it interesting that whatever position someone takes regarding the existence of Santa Claus, such an argument only involves humans, and never any other imaginary being. -Silence 09:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it is easier to prove something existed than to prove that something did not exist at some time in the past, I would think that proponents of the historical Jesus would have no problem asserting the facts. Therefore, I find it strange that objections raised by opponents to the Mythical Jesus article do not quote firm historical facts. Additionaly, it seems odd that there is a discussion over what "small" means, whilst one would think that historicity of Jesus would be something that can be proven easily in view of its significance and one should therefore not have to rely on some form of "majority argument". I would assume proponents of the "faith" would have jealously preserved any contemporary documents or artifacts that could unambiguously be linked to Jesus. In that sense the silence regarding Jesus in historical sources is worrying to say the least. Belvdme 13:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links, J.P. Holding

Regarding the link: "Shattering the Jesus Myth" by J.P. Holding

I am surprised that anyone, especially those of christianism, would attempt to build a case for the historicity of Jesus Christ by relying upon anything that Robert Turkel, aka J.P. Holding, has written.

References:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/turkel.html
http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/turkeldishonesty.html
http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001574

If christianism, et al, wishes to acquire credibility, it would be better off not relying upon a man void of such. -BonfireBuddhist 22:48, 05 December 2005

What is "christianism" and how is it different then Christianity? Sounds like your bias is shining through. And if you have a response to the merits of the Holding piece, I suggest you write it out and publish it somewhere. Attempted character assasination is not a rebuttal. And Holding has responded to attacks on his credibility and raised questions about those who have attacked him. If you wanted to give the complete picture you should complete your research. Otherwise, just more bias. Layman 18:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All I see are petty, personally motivated attacks against Holding; those are irrelevant to this article and purely POV. Please remove. -MAV

The Secular Web's POV Changes

The Secular Web has called for activists to modify this entry, which has resulted in a large number of POV (and sometimes just plain inaccurate) changes. I have kept in what NPOV stuff there was, but have edited the rest out. Layman 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, that would explain the upswing in POV. Lovely. -MAV

It is statements like this one that show the complete failure of these activists to understand the NPOV policy: "Arguments against the Jesus Myth remain weak, generally fail to grasp their opponents' position, and often raise strawmen....." And this is in the section devoted to Arguments Against the Jesus-Myth. I suggest the editor read the NPOV policy. Layman 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Arguments Against" section contains at least three strawman -- the cite on "invented around 100 AD" is absurd as no mythicist makes that claim. S-W's claims are circular and illogical, and also refute strawmen. If historicist claims are so powerful, why do they need to raise strawmen? -Michael Turton

Also, why do the anonmymous editors keep removing the relevant academic positions of some Jesus Myth scholars? Is it inaccurate or just embarassing? Layman 01:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is because of the way you have set up a twisted context for describing their background. I tried to rewrite the context so it was fairer, but gave up when you slapped back in the crap you had written earlier. It was simply easier to delete all mention of their background (arguments, believe it or not, count for more than credentials -- speaking as someone who has published in fields outside his own). I can't contend against people whose sole interest appears to be to gain control of the material. I notice you still have not removed sevral of the strawman "against" arguments there. I also noticed that when I posted why they were wrong, you removed that -- but then edited in some negative material about methodology. -- Michael Turton

Who is the dean of New Testament studies? Sure Crossan is respected, but I had heard it was E.P. Sanders? Others will look back to Streeter. Others are fixated on J.P. Meiers or James Dunn's recent treatments. Layman 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The text read "Dean of historical Jesus studies" not "Dean of New Testament studies" Layman, and it would be difficult to claim that Crossan is not that. -Michael T.

More POV from the Sec Web. I have put 'consensus' back. The mythicists may not like it but it is a fact. The stuff on gnostics is irrelevant. Even the Docetists thought Jesus did the things in the Gospels in historical Judea, they just thought he was a spirit. Finally attempt to remove the reference to 'called Christ' in Josephus has been reversed. --James Hannam 12:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I took out the claim that Pagels believes what Doherty does about Paul. Doherty is not arguing that Paul is a gnostic, he is arguing that Paul believes in no historical Jesus at all. I do not believe that Pagels is a Jesus Myther and would like to see proof that she is before we make such a claim here (or come close to it). Does Pagels really say that all the references to Jesus in Paul's letters are referring to a pure celestial being who never existed? Layman 14:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC) s

Marx Reference

All right, I left out the reference to Engels (though it is accurate and he was one of the few impacted by Bruno's theory), but I put back in the fact that Bruno did not have an impact on the community of his day. That's an important part of the background. Layman 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless Engels actually published something reasonably scholarly on it, the relevance of mentioning Engels is outweighed by its prejudical effect and does not really belong in there. Stephen C. Carlson 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:Myth making

The assertion a myth cannot gain ground in a few generations seems to be, in my opinion, refuted by the spread and dissemination of urban myths and legends in the 20th century, some of which spread and were/are considered as gospel, in less than a generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.244.87.134 (talk • contribs) .

One would have to take into account the speed of communication in the first century, compared with the speed of communication in the 20th. This would affect how fast news, rumours, and myths alike could travel. Wesley 03:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect scholarships

It seems that KHM03 is very keen to suggest that the scholars who have spoken in favour of the "jesus"-Myth are not valid scholars and keeps removing verifiable fact that is repeated elsewhere on WP. I trust that, for balnace, s/he will allow all scholarts of "faith" supporting the notion that "jesus" was real can be clearly labelled? Robsteadman 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I have to say I'm surprised. You have made it an issue on other articles to state that the opinions of actual historians matter more than, say Biblical scholars...and I haven't disagreed with that. Why not be as precise here? The scholars listed on this article are absolutely valid scholars in their respective fields; I am not disputing that. What may be a concern is that none of those presently listed specialize in the field of "Jesus research" (call it what you will). Are they still valid scholars? Yes. Can we list them here? Sure; they're the most important voices regarding this topic, aren't they? But we should also, in the interests of "full disclosure", let the readers know where the specific expertise of these scholars resides. Fair? KHM03 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure would mean that if they have more than one area of specialism it is mentioned. Your "version" is clearly an attempt to push a POV. If they have published scholarly works about "jesus" they are valid even if they are professor of something else. Robsteadman 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And remember, Wikipedia cann't source itself. So asking me to look at their articles on WP isn't evidence enough. KHM03 12:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know - was just trying to give you a quickj and easy reference point. Robsteadman 12:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Publishing a book on a subject does not make one an expert. Wells' article states he is "known" as a NT scholar...that doesn't make him one. Bin Laden may be known in some circles as a hero, but that doesn't make him one. The additions I made were precise. What's wrong with precision and accuracy? What makes accuracy POV? KHM03 12:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting. He is "known" as an NT scholar because he is one! Osama "is" a hero to some. You are not being accurate so that is why your reverting is POV. Robsteadman 12:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, suppose I am known as an NFL Hall of Famer by my kids (I'm not). That doesn't make me an NFL Hall of Famer. Wells may be known as a NT scholar, but he carries no specific training/expertise in that area, no formal degrees. He's self-taught. Other trained NT scholars don't consider him a NT scholar. He is a scholar, however, with a degree in German, and we can certainly say that. Doesn't this seem fair? KHM03 13:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No. You do not need a degree in a subject to be a scholar. You can be self taught. He is only consider to not be an NT scholar by the "god squad" because they don;t like what he says. He does have expertise in that area. Stop pushing your POV and stop breaking the 3RR to make your POV. Robsteadman 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I haven't engaged in any uncivil behavior in this discussion; I'd ask you to do the same and review WP:CIV. Again, the "POV" I'm "pushing" is accuracy and full disclosure. Is Wells not a professor of German, with no formal expertise in NT scholarship? Is Gandy's degree not in the area on ancient pagan mystery religions? Is Doherty not a scholar of ancient languages? I think that's all accurate. I even conceded the "mysticism expert" on Freke and "humanist" on Doherty. Accuracy is what it's all about. KHM03 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So be accurate and not POV. Robsteadman 13:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If I've stated something inaccurate, please let me know. Again, is Wells not a professor of German, with no formal expertise in NT scholarship? Is Gandy's degree not in the area on ancient pagan mystery religions? Is Doherty not a scholar of ancient languages? I think that's all accurate. If I'm incorrect, please let me know...I'll be happy to apologize and make the necessary changes in the article. Thanks...KHM03 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But you have omitted and removed other accurate info in order to support your POV. That is wrong. And you have continually reverted in order to push your POV. That is wrong. Balance and verifiability. Robsteadman 13:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to show exactly where the expertise of these scholars lies. Surely we can agree there. I think you want to claim additional expertise, beyond formal training and degrees, is that correct? And, regarding reverts, I stopped when I hit 3, and am pleased that you have done so as well. My "POV", which you keep referring to, is accuracy. I'll assume good faith and assume that you refer to my desire for accuracy. Again, if I've stated anything that is not accurate concerning these scholars, let me know. KHM03 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I have requested page protection so that disputes have to be resolved before the article is edited. Deskana (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to work these issues out here. KHM03 13:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, we generally define 'scholar' as someone who has published relevant books with a scholarly press and/or articles in relevant peer-reveiwed journals. This is an objective and widely accepted definition that is certainly not POV. Wells, Doherty, Freke and Gandy have not done this as far as I am aware. I have respect for both Doherty and Wells (I've even met the latter). They have the usual channels open to them and have chosen not to avail themselves of them. Yes, it is true that the standard definition of scholar tends to exclude fringe veiwpoints. There are good reasons for this as most of us do not want to see creationism, holocaust belittlement or Atlantis studies dignified by the term 'scholarship'. Proponents of the Jesus Myth feel aggreived that their theories are treated in this way but the onus is on them to do the legwork. I find it incredible that not a single Jesus Myther has bothered to put himself through school, get a relevent PhD, put in the work to master Greek and actually play the game seriously. So instead of moaning that scholarship excludes them, they should stop building websites and start building academic careers.

KHM03's edits are bang on the money. To describe a non-professional as a new testament scholar is POV. The answer is to go ahead and become a NT scholar. (posted by User:James Hannam)

KHM03's edits are far from accurate - s/he is deliberatley removing information and accusarcy to pursue a POV and to try to belittle the scholrship of those who state the opposite view to him/herself. If these POV edits are to be kept we must ensure that the pro"jesus" lobby all have their "links" clearly pointed out - their scholarship is heavily POV being, as they are, mostly priests or people high up in churches. Their scholarship is, therefore, rather doubtful as it fulfills their "faith". Robsteadman 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

James - I like the comparisons to Atlantis and creationism, two "pseudo-sciences" which are strikingly similar to the "Jesus-Myth" stuff. Perhaps we can find a way to work that into the article at some point, after we resolve this current dispute. KHM03 17:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But, of course, the "Jesus-Myth" isn't at all similar to Atlantis or creationism.

" find it incredible that not a single Jesus Myther has bothered to put himself through school, get a relevent PhD, put in the work to master Greek and actually play the game seriously"

I'm pretty sure Doherty has a good command of Greek. Starless and bible black 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be a Pseudoscience or Pseudoskepticism. I would consider creationism, for example, pseudoscience. As far as Atlantis research...it's fascinating stuff, and many of the researchers (as much as I understand the field) might fall into the "pseudoscientist" category (though many have legitimate degrees and expertise in other fields of inquiry). There are certainly similarities between the Jesus-Myth stuff and the pseudoscience of creationism and Atlantis research, but I suggest we put this conversation on hold until we solve the current problems. KHM03 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not similar at all - the Jesus-Myth is based on verifiable facts. Creationism is just nonsense, it's not pseudoscience, it's just intolerable that is is given ANY space - fine when we were a primitive society with no knowledge but nonsensical in the modern world. Robsteadman 19:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get too far off topic; we can discuss the "pseudoscience" stuff another time. Right now, let's work on the current dispute, which relates to the questions I asked above:

...is Wells not a professor of German, with no formal expertise in NT scholarship? Is Gandy's degree not in the area on ancient pagan mystery religions? Is Doherty not a scholar of ancient languages?

If I am incorrect, please let me know. Thanks...KHM03 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I maintain you can be a scholar in a subject in which you have no first degree. To claim that is the only way to be a scholar is not right. I maintain that my version is more accurate and less POV (because, let's be honest here, that's all your protest and breaking the 3RR is about - pushing your POV to try to make a subject look silly because you disagree with it). Now, let's try being NPOV and state the facts - I intend to restore my edit - if you revert you are simply being a POV vandal. Robsteadman 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this particular edit battle, but I had to reply to rob's comment "pushing your POV to try to make a subject look silly because you disagree with it" - rob, that's exactly what you stated on your talk page is your whole hope in your editing: to 'help people see the lies' and make the subject appear as the "mumbo jumbo" you feel it is. Be cautious about what you're accusing others of. --Oscillate 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - yet again you mis represent. I want the veriufiable and factual to be presented so that people are able to make up their own minds. When they do see the facts most will, I suspect, see the lies and mumbo jumbo of religion. As it is, the "faith" gestapo keep pushing unproven, unverified and fiction as fact. Deplorable. I do hope you get the difference and stop misrepresnting what I have said. I want NPOV berifiable articles. What SOME are trying to do is have unbalanced POV articles - that is wrong and should be stopped. Robsteadman 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, we disagree here. I believe in accuracy and precision. The authors cited are scholars in their respective fields, and have been granted appropriate degrees in those fields. That doesn't make any of them a "Jesus" scholar or NT scholar or historian. My degrees are in history and theology; I cannot claim to be a scholar of, say, mythology or cinema, even if I find those fields fascinating (which I do!). If I were to write a book on mythology, that still doesn't make me a scholar or an expert...it means I wrote a book on mythology.

Now, if the experts the field of mythology read my works and decided that I was a bona fide expert and legitimate scholar, even though I lack formal training in the area, then great! Has that happened with Wells, et al? Not that I'm aware of. Again, if I'm incorrect here, please cite the evidence, and I'll happily concede.

As far as the "POV vandal" thing. I guess that must be your definition of "someone who disagrees with Rob". But it's not the WP definition. Please review WP:VAND when you have time; you'll see that I am certainly no vandal (esp. review this). Regarding "POV", have I stated something inaccurate? I've asked now I think four times...please let me know if I've stated something inaccurate. I'll gladly change it.

If you insist on reverting to the less precise version, of course I'll correct your edit. Thanks...KHM03 20:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The scholars you SUPPORT on "jesus", for instance, are, largely, "faith" scholars whose scholarship is all part of their "faith". These scholars are scholars in the fields I have stated - your removal of them is simply wrong. It is NOTHING to do with accuracy or precision - it is all to do with POV pushing. Having a first degree does not make you a scholar in ANYTHING. These are scholars and are treated as such - just not by the POV "faith" scholars and the rest of teh "god" squad editors. Yes, I have read the VANDALISM stuff - I think pushing a POV by deliberately making articles less encyclopdiec is also vandalism. It is not what you have written that is wrong, it is what you have removed - those things are correct and should be restored to the article. Your refusal to allow FACT in says everything about you and your POV pushing. But, again, thanks for further evidence of your behaviour. My version - is NOT less precise 0 that's the whoel point - it is more precise and removes your POV slant. Robsteadman 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, Rob...bring me "verifiable" evidence that the scholars are not experts in the fields I mentioned, and "verifiable" evidence of their training in NT scholarship/history, and I'll concede. Thanks...KHM03 20:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

ARGH! You just don;t get it do you - your definition of scholar is so narrow it is meaningless. Robsteadman 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone is a person of faith doesn't mean we can discount their expertise. That's not only Wikipedia policy, it's the practice of academia. Have I erred in stating the formal expertise of Wells, et al? Apparently not; you've had ample opportunity to state that. Are the statements of their training false? Please...for the last time...cite your evidence, or let's move on.

You are also free to develop your own personal definition of vandalism, but on Wikipedia, we'll stick with the authoritative definition detailed here. My POV is accuracy, and if I've erred, please cite specifics. I want fact (degrees in German, mystery religions, etc.), not conjecture and subjective opinion (someone is an expert because they wrote a book, someone else is not because they believe in God, etc.). What you're suggesting seems awfully POV to me, and we can't go there without violating Wikipedia policy. I won't do that for you, Rob.

What definition of scholar or expert would you prefer we utilize here? I'm willing to consider that and work with you to achieve a consensus. Thanks...KHM03 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholar is a misleading term in many ways. The "American Heritage Dictionary" has this definition:

schol·ar P Pronunciation Key (sklr) n. A learned person. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student. A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.

"WordNet" suggests:

scholar

n 1: a learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines [syn: scholarly person, student] 2: someone (especially a child) who learns (as from a teacher) or takes up knowledge or beliefs [syn: learner, assimilator] 3: a student who holds a scholarship

the OED:

scholar

noun 1 a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic. 2 chiefly archaic a person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study. 3 a university student holding a scholarship.

The dictionary definition is much broader than the one you are using. Maybe there's anoter term you'd suggest? Or maybe you'd like to use the disctionary definition?

As I sasid before your edits are accurate but do not provide the full picture, they are missing information that would make the article less POV and more balanced. Please stop your POV pushing. Robsteadman 07:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have put a compromise up. Robsteadman 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I was proud of you. Your response was coherent and civil. Then, your last sentence...Please stop your POV pushing. You were so close to civility.

At any rate, I accept your compromise. KHM03 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Surely the intro should be focusing on those in favour and supporting this and then saying others don;t, who can be discussed further down? It seems odd not to mentio the main peoeple behind this until the background para. Robsteadman 16:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. The opponents "list" is now a footnote...is that acceptable? As I currently read it...

The Jesus-Myth is a concept associated with a sceptical position on the historicity of Jesus, which claims that Jesus did not exist as an historical character, but was, instead, an abstract, symbolic, and metaphorical allusion to a higher knowledge. The theory, based, in part, on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other evidence about his life, has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians[1].

...it seems OK to me. The only change I might suggest (for NPOV reasons) would be "...based, in part, on what they consider a lack of extant...", similar to what's at the main Jesus article. Are you suggesting that we list Wells, Doherty, et al, in the intro? KHM03 18:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"::: I think Bauer should be mentioned in the intro and probably Wells. "What they consider" is POV - they cite a lack or the lack not "what they consider" - the point is there are no extant contemporaneous ocuments that mention him - verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 19:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist Jesus-Myth advocates in denial

As a scholar and an historian I would like to draw a few parallels and make a few observations. I think that it is safe to make a comparison of those who maintain that Jesus never existed as an historical person with "Flat Earth Society" advocates and "Holocaust Revisionists". They are perfect analogues of these two other schools of thought. I am appalled at the lack of objectivity in such so-called scholars. They offend the basic philosophical principle to be seekers after the truth. Instead they supress the proof and ignore the facts. I guess it is hard for them. They are in denial as one might say in Pschology. They should not feel so threatened about the historical fact of Jesus' existence, which the vast majority of scholars accept as factual as the existence of the emperor Caesar Augustus. My counsel to them is not to be threatened by people who think differently than they do. I don't feel threatened by them. It is not enough for them to get their point across: they must supress what they disagree with. drboisclair 19:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A Laughable post, also on the "jesus" talk page. What sort of "historian" are you? CLearly not one who requires fact and verifiable evidence? Robsteadman 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is "laughable" to you because you cannot deny it. drboisclair 13:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on "Pschology", but I can comment on the claim of parallels.

There is overwhelming scientific and historical evidence, respectively, for a spherical Earth and the occurance of the Holocaust. To deny these things, you need an axe to grind. Typically, those who deny the former do so on religious (Christian) grounds; those that deny the latter do so on ideological (antisemitic) grounds.

Given this, what grounds do you think Jesus mythers base their denial one? A common answer is that their basis is atheism, but atheism is not threatened by a historical Jesus, so this does not follow. For that matter, theism works just fine even without Jesus; look at all those Jews. In short, I don't see any viable options for an error hypothesis. Do you have any suggestions?

Switching tot he second part, I freely admit that the belief in a historical Jesus us popular. Then again, so is the belief that this historical figure could walk on water and raise the dead and was actually God. Should the popularity of Jesus-as-historical be any more convincing to historians than the popularity of Jesus-as-God? Clearly, beliefs can be quite popular even without anything approaching a sound evidential and logical basis.

I'm not saying whether or not Jesus was historical. I don't honestly know, though I do find the issue interesting. I am saying, however, that you can't rule out the mythological explanation with hand-waving and an appeal to popularity. It has to come down to the actual evidence, which is why this article has to be neutral and factual. Alienus 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You are stating your opinion about the evidence for a spherical earth and the Holocaust. You do not apply your criteria consistently. There is historical testimony for the existence of Jesus as an historical person. You are like David Hume that skeptically denied all knowledge. Fortunately for the world most people are not as skeptical and cynical as you are. drboisclair 19:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Hume did not deny all knowlege. Where do you get that from? Also, the analogy between those who deny there is a spherical earth and those who deny that Jesus existed is completely off base. There is some debate about the latter for good reason, among schlolars. There are only two pieces of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus which have any reliability, and only one of those has any decent reliability, but that is a very short passage by Josephus. And even that is debatable. There is simply not enough evidence to regard his existence as a given, but there is enough to consider it reasonably possible. This is in stark contrast to the evidence for both a spherical earth or the Holocaust. Giovanni33 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I said I don't know whether or not Jesus existed as a historical figure. I didn't say he didn't. Moreover, you managed not to address any of my key points, which I must take as a concession to their truth.

I've met people who witnessed the Holocaust first-hand, and I've personally made measurements of the Earth's size and shape, so these are two issues that are not at all controversial. In contrast, this Jesus fellow was supposed to have lived two millenia ago, which makes the whole thing more shakey right there. Worse, for all the material written about him centuries after his supposed death, it's not clear whether there are any genuine contemporaneous accounts. It doesn't help that the latter accounts that we have make claims of miracles and godhood.

In short, you don't seem to have an actual point here, just a personal attack against me. You also personally attack Steadman, which is likewise in bad form. Unless you raise yourself to a higher level of scholarliness, I'm going to have to dismiss you utterly. Alienus 20:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that you have chosen not to respond and therefore accept your concession. Alienus 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not concede to your points. I think that Historical Revisionist Jesus-Mythers have an ax to grind--thankyou for bringing that expression to mind. I think that it is fair to say that everyone and anyone however objective they claim to be or try to be have a POV. In this case there is a very strong POV driving this pseudo-history. What is unscholarly about it is that those who practice it have a hidden agenda: the advancement of atheism. I challenge any of such "scholars" to apply the same skepticism to Moses or Socrates or Hannibal of Carthage that they apply to Jesus Christ. No matter how much they scribble and rave He will not go away. I apologize for any ad hominem criticism here, but I think that the way in which certain Jesus-Myth advocates have carried on in connection with the Jesus article borders on childishness: when the child does not get his own way he cries. This enterprise involves denial of documentary evidence and slanted historical revisionist propaganda. Finally, I do not concede to you anything. drboisclair 12:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was terrible; you would have been better off leaving it as a concession. Instead, you try an argument that I refuted even before you made it. To reiterate, the non-existence of Jesus would not entail atheism, so atheism cannot be the grinding axe here.

In the spirit of charity, I'll toss you a bone. A possible candidate for the grinding axe would be opposition to Biblical literalism. However, even this doesn't amount to a whole lot, since Biblical literalism already flies in the face of the facts, so one more proven error would have no impact at all. To someone who can deny evolution outright, subtle arguments about lack of contemporaneous evidence would be underwhelming. As it stands, their beliefs are based on faith in God and the Holy Bible, not on any evidential basis, so this debate has no impact on them.

In short, you've got nothing. The only one with an axe to grind is you. Alienus 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Steadman, your posts are even more laughable and pitiable. You selectively apply your criteria, which amount to total skepticism. By your burden of proof I could deny your existence. Did you graduate from college? drboisclair 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a personal attack on another editor and a violation of wikipedia policy. Giovanni33 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No - there is verifiable evidence of my existence. My views and my edits are two different things - I want NPOV and verifiability so that a genuine balance is achieved - currently one POV is rammed down everyon;es throats and it is POV and unverifiable. What does my eucation matter to you? Why are you trying to make this personal? (unsigned by Steadman)

You are the one who characterized my posts to be laughable when they are logical. You have to consider that you need to go through all of Wikipedia and apply your skeptical criteria to every historical personage. You might start with Alexander the Great: there is no evidence of his existence that comes from the time he lived. How about Julius Caesar. I think that it is completely ridiculous to define Jesus Christ as existing in the opinion of . . . I wondered about your education because I cannot imagine someone who has graduated from college carrying on as you do. I was just curious. Have you ever heard of A.J. Ayer and David Hume? You remind me of them. drboisclair 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not compare Rob to David Hume, a man who is generally accepted to be one of the greatest philosophers in history, or to Ayer, certainly a distinguished philosopher, though not a great one. Such comparisons do your own claims to intellectual seriousness no good. Paul B 12:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Point well made. At least David Hume could spell. drboisclair 13:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist of making this personal? Please try to debate the facts not the editor. Ad hominem has no place here. When, eventually, "jesus" is made sufficiently NPOV I will move on to other articles I suspect. One thing at a time! Yes, I have have heard of them - thanks for trying to patronise me - and they insisted on good evidence. BTW there is a lot of evidnece of Casar - one of the great "christian" myuths that there is more evidence of "jc" than of JC. Robsteadman 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable criteria for proof also have no place here mr. steadman. drboisclair 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not asked for anything unreasonable. Verifiable facts have a place, and opinions too if attrbuted and POV is stated. That is a reasonable request. Why are you so anti- the verifiable and the stating where opinions come from? Robsteadman 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. But I am sure that you have looked at hard copy encyclopedias. They do not require as great a burden of proof as you require. Your view is stated in the article, but the article is written on the basis of overwhelming historical data. You are asking those who advocate the historicity of Jesus Christ to dis-prove a negative. You want us to disprove that He did not exist. drboisclair 20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If all we do is copy the tem,plte of hard copy encycs there is no point in this. I am not asking for additional buren's of proof merely that any proof or opinion is carefully attribute and accounted for. Tyhe article is not currently written on historical data but, largely, opinion. We cannot say for sure he did exist - we are wrong if that is what a reader gets from reading this article. It is simply not verifiable. If they get that some people, and specific ones, say he did exist and some others say he didn't, and that those who say he existed believe he did the following then that's fine. But is all needs to be verifiable and NPOV and atytributed.Robsteadman 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My dear man, you cannot verify even the building blocks of life like the atom, although you can plot the genome. You have to go along with the consensus of scholarly, informed "opinion" don't you? Are you aware of the document of someone that was opposed to the Christians of the first century, who simply questioned the phenomenon of a solar eclipse during Passover when the New Testament says there was an eclipse. If that person had a problem with the existence of Jesus then, why didn't he raise the same concerns? You are a good, studied, intelligent Logical Positivist. There is honor in that. I am sorry if I was patronizing and rude in any way. I see that you are being put through the mill. That will toughen and form you as a scholar. It helped me many years ago. drboisclair 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Drboisclari, you hardly have enough information about the philosphical views of the above editors to pin them to such particular phisolical schools of thought. You have no basis for claiming such precision. Your comment about David Hume above is ridiculous. The bulding blocks of life are complex organic molecules, which recently have been found to be in great abundance in space. Cells are the basic units of life. Atoms are the basic units of all matter--of everything. You are completely wrong when you say science can not "even verifty" their existence. Ever heard of scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) that is able to take pictures? There are other "direct" imaging techniques as well, like atomic force microscopy (ATM). Then there are tons of other methods which "indirectly" tell us how atoms are connected up and how they are arranged in crystals, such as X-ray crystallography (atoms scatter x-rays and set up a diffraction pattern), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy (protons "sing" at different frequencies when put in a magnetic field and the frequency depends on what other kinds of atoms are nearby and how far apart they are)....plus tons more. The evidence for the existence of atoms is OVERWHELMING. I don't know what kind of scholar you are but your education in either philosophy or science is lacking. Lastly your question as to why didn't writers back in the 1st century express their concern about the claims of Jesus, was maybe becaues at that early date there were no claims of Jesus, maybe it was invented centuries later, and so that explains the silence when there should be no silence about him, given his impact. At least this is a logical explanation for the Jesus-Myth perspective.Giovanni33 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They still have not taken an actual picture of an atom. Good luck to them! What you state about the evidence of the atom is your POV, and my POV is that the evidence for the factual existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God is OVERWHELMING, and those with that POV are in the majority. drboisclair 13:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have taken pictures. I think I should direct you at an elementary level science mueseum for kids. I'm sorry you are ignorant of science. It's so much more liberating than religious dogma (IMHO). [1] [2] What I stated about evidence for the atom is not POV, its FACT. You claim that there is evidence for Jesus as the son of God is simply not true. Infact there is no evidence for the existence of God. That is best left a matter of your personal faith. It has to be, because faith doesnt require evidence. If you based your beliefs on evidence along then you'd be an atheist like me. Don't confuse faith with facts. And, just to inform you most people are not Christians, so your not factually correct, although logically it doesnt matter. Maybe review logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Giovanni33 13:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now who is being ad hominem in their attacks? There are no pictures of the atom. Post one if there is one. I have heard that they have pictures of molecules but not atoms. I am not that naive to imagine that a person's religion needs factual proof. I am also not saying that we can prove that Jesus is the Son of God. I think that there is evidence, though, that Jesus is an actual historical person--more evidence than is present for the proof that Moses was an actual historical person. Don't get me wrong. I maintain that Moses is historical too. I also think that there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was an historical person than that Hannibal of Carthage was an historical person. Applying your unreasonable criteria would make myths of Moses, Hannibal, and Alexander the Great. I do not use an argumentum ad populum for proof. I just cite the fact of the number of Christians in the world to indicate what has the most influence: either the skeptics that make up Jesus-Myth Historical Revisionists or Christians. The antipathy against Jesus is also apparent here. That may indicate that those that feel such antipathy may be closer to Jesus than they think. Something to think about. drboisclair 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the links I provided above, with pictures? Even though pictures not not necessary for many obvious reasons, if you like pictures, I did provide those for you as requested. Giovanni33 22:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But we can't express our own views and wishes in the article. We have to simply parrot academia. While we need to honestly express the views of the Jesus-Myth folks, we also have to recognize that this theory has not been well received by historians and/or Biblical scholars (or theologians, but that's less relevant). The only "major" figure mentioned in the article who is connected with this idea is Doherty, whose work has obviously had its critics. Part of being NPOV means being honest about this theory's place in academia. More than that, Rob has asked repeatedly (here and at Talk"Jesus) for evidence of Jesus' existence, and I have repeatedly reminded him that he's asking in the wrong places, with the wrong people. The scholars by a large majority believe Jesus to have existed, even though they cannot say much about miracles, the Resurrection, his divinity, etc. So Rob needs to argue with them about providing evidence; all we can do is reiterate their statements and perspectives. Anything else would be original research. KHM03 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

drboisclair - your point about wanting pictures of atoms to prove their existence is nonsense. Is vision the only sense you use? Science doesn't work like this. You don't need a picture to deduce the existence of something - you use the scientific method. There were no pictures of the far side of the moon until the Apollo 8 mission went there - but no one disputed the fact that there was a far side to the moon! The evidence for atoms is overwhelming, as it is for many things of which we have no pictures. For example, Science has given us a very good understanding of the interior of our planet, and all of the data collected seems to agree with our present model of how the earth 'works'. This has led to an understanding of plate tectonics and explained all kinds of phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain ranges, rift valleys etc. Do we have to have a 'picture' of the centre of the Earth to justify earth science? I think not. Do we need a picture of the centre of the Sun to understand Nuclear Fusion? As a christian the debate on this page may seem very frustrating and annoying to you, but that doesn't mean that the debate doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. I personally can't stand people who argue that the moon landings were faked by the Americans, but I like to argue with these people with data, references, science and reasoned argument. It quickly becomes clear to all but the most obsessed of 'anti americans' that their arguments are rubbish. I don't need to insult or attack them - the strength of my argument always wins through. I personally agree with you that a chap known as Jesus walked the Earth 2000 years ago, but there is nothing wrong with disputing this. Both insisting that he did or didn't exist are POVs. Lets stick to talking about actual evidence - it would be much more interesting and revealing don't you think? Adrian Baker 22:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You get my drift, though, about unreasonable criteria for accepting the existence of something. There are some editors advocating the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed that wish to impose their strict criteria for determining the existence of a person, thing, or event. They apply it to Jesus of Nazareth a fortiori but not to other historical figures like Moses or Alexander the Great. They point out that since there is no documentary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth that can be dated with precision to the time of his life on earth, he did not exist. The same is true for Alexander the Great. There is no documentary evidence that he existed that comes from the years that he lived; hence, according to their criteria, he never existed. I think, though, that it is good to have them around. It keeps Christian scholars on their toes to gather as much data as possible. I believe that there is such a thing as an atom. I believe that the earth is sheroid, and that there was a tragedy in recent history known as the Holocaust. I am just advocating reasonable criteria for determining historical fact and a consistent application of the same. I think that it is suspect for a scholar to single out Jesus of Nazareth for a rigorous threshold of evidence in order to determine whether or not he existed. It is suspect because Jesus is the central figure of the Christian religion. Christianity maintains that it is a religion based on the factual life, death, and resurrection of a real historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. Other religions like the pagan ones and Hinduism posit that the sacred events of their faiths happened either in the far past or above time and space. When Christianity began the scandal to the listener was that its sacred events occurred in their recent past. drboisclair 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do get your drift, but your claim that "I think that it is suspect for a scholar to single out Jesus of Nazareth for a rigorous threshold of evidence in order to determine whether or not he existed" is clouded somewhat by your beliefs. It isn't just Jesus whose existence is doubted - what about the world's greatest ever playwright (POV!) - William Shakespeare?? There is a raging debate about who actually wrote the plays and this IS a legitimate debate by scholars that has nothing whatsoever to do with religious beliefs. What I'm trying to say is that your belief that Jesus is so special is, perhaps, causing you to be more critical of others than perhaps is necessary. Let the facts and figures speak for themselves. If this page can correctly show that there is no evidence whatsoever of Jesus's existence, then let it do so. If not, let the evidence for him be clear. Either way it doesn't change the fact that he either did, or did not exist, does it? Lack of evidence shows only that - A lack of evidence! It certainly doesn't show the truth or otherwise of the Christian faith. Adrian Baker 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I labor under taking the universal acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth's historical existence for granted, not realizing that there is a group of scholars out there that are questioning his existence. I am from the United States, which sometimes does not follow the progressive lead that Europe gives in research. I am willing to take the challenge of subjecting the evidence to gruelling scrutinity, but wouldn't that reduce everything in history to myth? Perhaps we could be sure about things in the recent past with all of the evidence that includes video evidence. The problem is that with too much skepticism you could not be sure of anything. Another thing to consider everyone has a religion--even atheists and agnostics. Their religion is their atheism and agnosticism. If they don't want to call it religion, they could call it a philosophy. If I am an atheist, I make a metaphysical judgment for myself that there is no god. If I am a materialist, I make a metaphysical (philosophical) judgment for myself that there is no entities that are spirit. I still have a philosophical if not a religious point of view. History and Science can subject the historical evidence of Jesus to the most stringent tests known to man, and I would be interested in following such tests. Even though I am a Christian I do not feel threatened by it in any way. I want to take the Jesus-Myth historiography more seriously as a reputable discipline. So I disavow the below section that it is pseudo-history and crack-pot scholarship. I do acknowledge that there are scholars with good credentials working with it. drboisclair 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is good to talk without the animosity seen elsewhere! Your point on 'too much skepticism' causing problems is interesting. As a scientist, you are trained to be sceptical and to assume nothing. All experimental work must be be seen to be carried out totally without bias. All other possible explanations of your results must be considered and discussed. It is how science works. Science is littered with examples of scientists with their own agendas who carried out bad science to try to prove something that they believed to be true. All scientists have learned from this and it is why we always question everything, repeat others work, argue about it and rip to pieces anyone who publishes inaccurate or unverified results. Assumptions that underlie our work MUST be shown to be true (as should be the case with all scholarly work). That is why pages like this on Wikipedia exist - scientists like to question everthing! Of course, this approach can seem quite 'in-your-face' and aggresive to non-scientists, but it is the way we work. I hope that you can see that this is perhaps why some views on this page may seem quite sacriligious to some, but basic common sense to others!

One other quick point - why do you insisit on calling atheists religious? It is of course your point of view, but it really has no validity. You seem to use this argument a lot, and in reading your many comments on different pages, it could look to the disinterested observer as if you are trying to wind up those with an atheistic viewpoint! Every atheist I know (ie most of the people I know!) consider an atheist to be one who DOESN'T have any belief whatsoever in religion of any kind. It is the opposite of religion! To illustrate what I mean, darkness means an absence of light. It doesn't mean a 'different' kind of light does it! The opposite to having kinetic energy, is to not have any kinetic energy! I offer these comments as a way of getting Wiki pages like this back onto the subject matter, rather than being rant pages. I'll write no more here, and hope that this may just help to bring a little sanity back to a scholarly discussion. Adrian Baker 21:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This Pseudo-Historical Skepticism and Crack-pot Scholarship

I will not revert what I consider to be my fair evaluation of this pseudo-historical enterprise of people who are atheists and agnostics, who feel threatened by Christianity and any kind of theism. They call into question my scholarship; they selectively apply their skepticism, but their worst solecism is their lack of ability to spell English words properly. They single out Jesus Christ for their unfair and unscholarly denial when they do not do the same for other historical personages like Moses, Alexander the Great, and Hannibal of Carthage to name a few. I think that anyone who looks at this travesty should also link to Historical revisionism, which is what this stuff is. Jesus Christ is the most thoroughly documented historical personage from antiquity. The historian Will Durant wrote that if some of the works of Plato and Aristotle were subjected to the harsh, severe criticism that Jesus and the Greek New Testament were subjected to they would have long faded into legend. I challange these Revisionists to show from any hard copy encyclopedia an article on Jesus Christ that says that his existence is an opinion. In my opinion this concept and its historical pretensions are inane and prejudicial. No matter how much people want to do away with Jesus Christ from the memory of humanity He will remain with them until the end of time. Christ and Christian theologians of history will be remembered until the end of time while these ideologues will fade into the mists of time within a few years. Deo volente ad maiorem gloria Dei drboisclair 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus-Myth possition is a reasonable debate, and a valid viewpoint. The are only two pieces of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus which have any reliability, and only one of those has any decent reliability, but that is a very short passage by Josephus. Even that is debatable. There is, thus, not enough evidence to regard his existence as a given, but there is enough to consider it reasonably possible. Many assume that Jesus existed, I think that is a reasonable assumption, but I also think that those who choose to assume Jesus did not exist is just as reasonable. Its not an established fact. As you well know the Bible is not a reliable historical document--its basically a propaganda tool written by by people who had an agenda. There were many other myths identical to the Jesus-myth (if we take that POV), so it would not be strange to suppose it as a continuation of that same religious super-hero archetype. Even among the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, they believe that 80% of what the NT acribes as the word of Jesus is can not be thought to be credible. As Prof. Price says, "There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was." [3] This views are shared by the likes of very educated scholars who are authorities in their field, like Prof. Price whose degrees include:

• Doctor of Philosophy, New Testament; Drew University, Madison NJ; May 1993
• Master of Philosophy, New Testament; Drew University, Madison NJ; October 1992
• Doctor of Philosophy, Systematic Theology; Drew University, Madison NJ; May, 1981
• Master of Theological Studies, New Testament; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton MA; May 1978
• Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy and Religion; History; Montclair State College, Upper Montclair *NJ; May 1976 [4] I think we should give both sides of this debate more respect.

To answer your comparison with Alexander the Great, I'll quote Prof. Price, "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." Reasoned, logical argument wins, not name calling. There are many logical arguments that you can examine, from both the argument from silence and the argument from best evidence.Giovanni33 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is this man's POV. There is no way to be sure about anything with such skepticism. I am not sure about his scholarship, but that is my POV. This pseudo-scholarship is also propaganda, but that is my POV to which I am entitled. If he wants to consider the New Testament completely unreliable, he is among a minority of scholars. The majority believe that it has at least some historical reliability. I am glad that this man was able to make a few bucks by publishing a book. If Jesus Christ is a legend, then maybe he wasted his time getting that theological doctorate. He is one man with his own POV, and the idea is to see to it that this is all NPOV (neutral point of view). So we hear him, but the test of time will be: will he be remembered. Perhaps two millenia from now there will be those who question whether or not he existed. Time has a way of eroding away evidence. His views will become passé in a few years. drboisclair 13:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your extremism, dogmatism are showing. This standard of skepticism does not mean "there is no way to be sure of anything." Yes, its this scholars POV, but its with a logical argument, and with the training and credentials to know what he is talking about. No one says the NT is totally unreliable. It has its place but its highly problematic, esp. when you take it as the sole basis in which to hold to a factual belief. That is why extra-biblical references are so important. There are many contradictory details about Jesus, and different authors all pick out different details to focus on and arrive at radically different Jesus-figures. They can't all be Jesus - so we are left with an embarrassment of riches. There are, quite simply, too many Jesus figures running around. And the unfortunate fact is, once all of the alleged mythology has been stripped away and the remnants of a person are left behind, there just isn't enough left to consider seriously. If there was anyone at the original center of the tradition, we no longer have sufficient information to be sure. On the other hand, we have a tremendous amount of information which allows us to create amazing parallels between early Christianity and numerous pagan traditions. These mystery religions were popular throughout the Mediterranean region - although they may have started in Egypt, they seem to have spread from one area to the next, always growing in popularity. The idea that the Christian parallels are just coincidence would stretch credulity to the breaking point. But while it is clear that pagan religions had a strong influence on early Christianity, could there be even more to it? According authors like Freke and Gandy, there is quite a bit more - early Christianity was, essentially, a mystery religion. But instead of pagan, it was a Jewish version. So what is the truth? It's unlikely that we'll ever know for sure. But we do know that history is not as clear-cut as orthodox Christian tradition has told everyone and that the existence of a historical Jesus can justifiably be doubted.Giovanni33 13:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it takes more than the opinion of one scholar or two to make for a viewpoint that's taken seriously in academia, particularly if that view is as radical and "way out there" as this one. It simply isn't a factor in scholarship. It is viewed as pretty much as pseudocience by most scholars, or, at best, a protoscience (if that's the correct term), since it really is a still developing POV that doesn't have a lot of research supporting it at this point. We just need to be honest about how academics view it, regardless of whether we think the view has merit. KHM03 13:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To User:Giovanni33: Why bother? Why waste time on what one believes to be false? I guess because most people in the world believe it whether this Price person likes it or not. To say that he does not have a hidden agenda or that he is reliable is your POV. He is just another scholar, who wants to make a few bucks by publishing a book. drboisclair 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, and I guess Tom Wright wrote his book "to make a few bucks" too, calculating that his pro-Gospel account would be more commercial that a sceptical one given that Christians are more likely to buy books about Jesus than are non-Christians! We shouldn't impugne the motives of scholars unless we have good reason to do so. We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of either Price or Wright. Neither of them have a "hidden" agenda, since they are both entirely upfront about their beliefs. As for what most "most people in the world" think about Jesus, we can't say, can we? Most people are not Christians, so I guess they don't think about it much at all. Paul B 14:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, "what is good for the goose is good for the gander." Do not impugn the motives of Christian writers as some of the posting editors on this page have done. Christian apologists have been accused here of having hidden agendas. All write out of self-interest and POV of one kind or another. drboisclair 20:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But a billion (or so) people are Christians, who believe in the existence of Jesus. A billion (or so) Muslims agree. More importantly, most scholars believe he existed (although, as I said, that doesn't mean they necessarily believe the theological claims made about his divinity, Resurrection, etc.). Most atheists, I'd guess (and this is just a guess), don't refute that a man named Jesus lived 2000 years ago, and he preached in the Palestinian countryside, etc., but would reject any notion of divinity or divine Sonship (they'd probably agree with modern scholarship). So, who denies his existence? A relatively small group that, to be honest, isn't taken too seriously in academia. Now, we could argue that they're not taken seriously because so many fine, reputable scholars are Christian (a la Wright), but that is difficult to prove, since academia by and large respects good, responsible, well researched scholarship regardless of the religious faith of the scholar (whether Christian, atheist, or whatever). We just need to be honest about this. Present the Jesus myth theory and the particular POV of the supporting scholars in as unbiased a manner as possible...absolutely. But we should also be fair in presenting its place among scholars and in contemporary academia. KHM03 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you KHM03, however I disagree if you try to compare it to any debunked non-valid POV's such as is characteristic with revisionist theories, or junk science. This does not fit on that category. This is a minority/or fringe viewpoint that is a legitimate one. To doubt that Jesus existed, or even be open to that reasonable possiblity, is still not popular, but much progress is being made in this direction. As Christianity continues to decline in its membership and influence, these fringe perspectives will continue to make gains within academia, just as those who wish to accept it as a fact will be more open to the possiblity that may not be. Giovanni33 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society people and Holocaust Revisionists feel the same way about their scholarship. That is their point of view just as much as the Jesus-Myth Revisionists have their POV. Also, even atheism and agnosticism are religious beliefs: the belief that there are no religious beliefs is a religious belief. It would be incorrect to assert that Price, e.g., is not motivated by a religious belief even if it is the belief that there are no valid religious beliefs. drboisclair 20:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, a false analogy. The Flat Earth Society and Holocause Revisionlist are posing an understanding that is fundamentally irrational as it has been refuted by incontrovertable evidence. To persist with such a theory in this light is either irrational or prfoundly ignorant. The claims of Jesus, though, are very problematic and not as clear cut as you'd like to believe. I think you are letting your faith get in the way of your objectivity and reason in this matter. I wont repeat myself again since it seems to be little use to dogmatic thinking. I'd ask you, being a self-professed learned fellow, to at least review the basic defintion of religion from the American Heritage dictionary: re·lig·ion ( r¹-l¹j“…n) n. Abbr. rel. relig. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Also, please note that Athesits, Agnostic, and other such schools of thought ascribe to a naturalistic ontological or methodological approach (science), and hence reject any notions of the supernatural. Therefore, it can not be placed in the same category of a religious belief system. Please correct this basic and embarassingly faulty categorization as it only serves to underine your own crediblity in these matters. Giovanni33 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

drboisclair, I don't think that anyone seriously contests that the Jesus myth crowd is as motivated by their own religious beliefs as any other notable scholar. The point is that there are so few Jesus mythers, that their expertise lies in other fields, and that the academy doesn't really consider their work in this area to be "serious". That's why the pseudoscience bit rings so true. The problem is that while we might be convinced that there are similarities, we can't cite them unless a reputable scholar has already done so (otherwise, we'd violate WP:NOR.) Most scholars don't comment on the Jesus myth stuff because they don't take it even a little bit seriously. KHM03 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

KM03, you make the mistake, I think, of not differenciating between "religious beliefs" and beliefs about religion. The former is faulty in the way you use it, for those that advocate a Jesus myth possition are almost entirely (if not comopletely), composed of individuals who adopt a naturalitic world view. Thereforeto say they are motivated by religious belief (which is based on accepting notions of the supernatural specifically opposed by naturalism) is simply wrong. And, despite what you say about scholars, there are a minority of scholars whose expertise in as an authrority in this field and who do hold this possition, and their work is not dunked as those that engage in psuedoscience are easily refuted.Giovanni33 05:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you are wrong - the priests and other "faith" "scholars" taht you like to call the academy dismiss them but the lack of verifiable evidence is gaining popularity and is a well thought of position in philosophy. The priests, etc. have an opinion - however, none of them has produced a fact - we should only report their position as personal opinion. You are right most preiests don;t comment on it for fear people will see it is correct and turn away from them and their fiction. Robsteadman 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've figured out the way to deal with Rob...he's a comedian! When you read his stuff in that light, it works! Hilarious stuff! I think he must be here to make Wikipedia a lighter place! No one could seriously suggest that we disregard a scholar's work if they are a person of faith (atheist, Christian, whatever). Very funny stuff! And it means that until Rob has content and not this silliness, we're done here, and can move on. KHM03 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you make the mistake/tell the old lie that atheism is a "faith" - it is not - please don;t denegrate the rational and logical by lowering it to the level of "faith". "Scholars" of "faith", and particularly POV Scholars/priest scholars, should have their scholarship questioned if it conveniently proves their "faith" rather than respresenting the verifiable and factual. Thanks for more personal insults, by the way, more evidence. Robsteadman 07:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And the same can be said of the pro'jesus" "faith" brigade - there is no extanrt contemporaneous evidence of his existence as a person, there is no evidence of his divinity, the "jesus" seminar doubt most the gospels as beeing accurate or real... the POV pro-"jesus" schoalrs are just as bad, so stop trying to make out that your fiction of choice is factual. Robsteadman 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as you resent and hate it your decision to believe in God or not to believe in God is a religious decision. As Paul Tillich pointed out too: your "god" is the one with whom you are "ultimately concerned." That could be some of these Historical Revisionist scholars like Dr. Price, or the idea of "Jesus-Myth" or even--and this is not too far-fetched--yourself. Everyone has someone or something that they put first in their lives. Atheism and agnosticism are religions. Everyone relies on something or someone. drboisclair 09:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afriad that is total nonsense. So much for you scholarship when you cannot understand simnple words like atheism - look up a definition. It is not a religion. It involves no supernatural mumbo jumbo. It is not a "faith". In fact it is the lack of "faith" - the reliance on the rational. It is the neutral default position. You are talking rubbish - but thanks for making your position very clear - would you describe yourself as a fundamentalist? Robsteadman 09:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you learn how to spell better. No, I am not a fundamentalist, but I am a good theologian and philosopher, and I know what a theological decision is. Your posts are the closest things to rubbish that I can find on this website. drboisclair 10:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask you, being a self-professed learned fellow, to at least review the basic defintion of religion (from the American Heritage dictionary): re·lig·ion ( r¹-l¹j“…n) n. Abbr. rel. relig. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Also, please note that Athesits, Agnostic, and other such schools of thought ascribe to a naturalistic ontological or methodological approach (science), and hence reject any notions of the supernatural. Therefore, it can not be placed in the same category of a religious belief system. Athesism is not a religion but simply a possition that is without the assumptions of theism (a theism) Please correct this basic and embarassingly faulty categorization you keep making as it only serves to underine your own crediblity in these matters.Giovanni33 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio...I'd disagree with that. I'd say that, yes, agnosticism is an utter lack of faith. But atheism contains a great deal of faith (see Faith). Atheists have more faith, in my experience, than all but a handful of theists. It takes an incredible amount of faith to be certain that there is no divine. Webster's likens "faith" to "firm belief in something", "complete trust", or "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" (among other definitions, of course). The opposite of faith is not atheism; the opposite of faith is agnosticism. Atheists have faith that there is no God/god.

Webster's also defines "religion" (in part) as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", and "religious" (in part) as "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful; fervent, zealous". Given these understandings...common in the "theology world"...atheists are not (as far as I know) part of an organized religion, but they hold to a religion and have a great deal of faith. Rob, also, judging strictly from his edit history at Wikipedia and dialogue on talk pages (granted...not the most accurate judge of a person's theology or beliefs), is incredibly religious, and I write that not as an insult, but as an observation of reality based on the above definitions.

The important point here isn't whether Rob is religious (we can disagree on that, and it has no bearing on this discussion), it's whether all of the folks involved in this area are influnced by their personal faith...whether that is Christian, Jewish, atheistic, or anything else. Now, Wikipedia policy (and, indeed, the standards of academia) mainatains that a person's religious belief does not disqualify them as scholars. Yes, I think there are Christian scholars whose faith probably taints their work (see Creationism). Yes, I think the same is true for atheists (likely, some of the folks involved in the "Jesus myth" stuff). But we violate both Wikipedia policy and academic standards when we throw those charges around here, as Rob has done on numerous talk pages, and we just can't take Rob too seriously while he tosses that stuff around. KHM03 10:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your partial defintions are true but not the heart of the matter, which is what an understanding of religion is: an acceptance of the supernatural. That requires faith since it goes against material evidence (known laws of nature), and its not very logical. The faith that you identify with atheists that say God does not exist is fundamentally different in nature and not really faith because it's logical and based on the lack of evidence where there should be evidence (the argument from absence). The strong atheist can operate on the assumption that there is no god (a great truth), until there is at least SOME tiny bit of evidence to suggest that that the god hypothesis is at least logical and rational, even if not probable. If there were a lot of evidence and one still denied it, esp. on supernatural grounds, then the roles would be reversed. But, to claim a God despite the total lack of either material evidence or logic in doing so, is what really requires faith (since there is nothing else to base itself on). To believe there is no god, on the other hand, is not blind, but is based on applying logic and from looking at the evidence. See the logical prinicpal of Occams Razor for example. Ofcourse, we can never be 100% sure that something doesnt exist from a lack of evidence, or from reasoned logic, but it's certainly not faith to assume that reality exists as it does without the unneeded and contradictory God hypothesis. That is just a logical ontological naturalism stemming directly from the success of methodological naturalism. And, it need not be dogmatic in nature, as it doesnt oppose evidence but stems from it. Hence, Atheists are not bound by faith, its not a religion. Think about the example of the Flying Spagetti Monster. Is it really a matter of faith to say that no such thing exists, in the same way is it is faith to believe in it? http://www.venganza.org/ Giovanni33 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

ah, the ad hominem personal attack - brilliant. if you can't debate the evidence attack the writer. A theologian decision is diffeent from a scholarly decision. A theological decision is often different from the verifiable and factual. So you can name documents, extant contemporaneous ones, which mention "jesus"? Or would you rather just try to force a slanging match? (Thanks again for more evidence of your misuse and breach of WP policy). Robsteadman 10:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Steadman, you are levying ad hominems too by saying that I talk rubbish. I am praying for you. drboisclair 10:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your breath. If you are stating, as you did, taht atheism, and agnosticism, are religions then you ARE talking nonsense. DO look up the words in a dictionary. Try the verifiable and factual for a change. Stop pushing your "faith" POV as if it is factual. Robsteadman 10:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Prayer can be thought as well as spoken. You are doing a good job of pushing your own point of view with atheism and agnosticism. In order to be truly free of religion, stop talking about it and don't be threatened by it. POV is not all bad. Everyone has a POV. If I am pushing mine, you are pushing yours twice as much. drboisclair 10:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No inorder for us all to be free of the mystical and supernatural mumbo jumbo we need the "god squad" and "faith gestapo" to be removed from positions where they can indoctrinate children, where their fiction is considered fact and where the falsehoods of religion are accepted as the norm. I am not pushing any POV in my edits - you, however seem very keen to extend a hugely bioased POV in edits - as exampled by the amusing, and unverifiable, caption to the picture on your user page. Try verifiuable and factual for a change. The real world is good but could be improved with the absence of all the supernatural hocus pocus. Robsteadman 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That may or may not be true...no way to predict the future, and some of us are hoping for a Christian revival! But the point is that we have to portray it as the minority view that it is. As far as comparing it to Atlantis or creationism (see above), while I personally think that's legitimate, we shouldn't put that in the article unless we could find some scholars who have maintained that (and I haven't even looked, to be honest with you). Fair? KHM03 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course the truly pseudo historical is the pushing of "faith" as fact when there is no evidence or reason for it. I think you've used the right words but applied it to the wrong side. Robsteadman 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To User:Robsteadman: Your own POV (point of view) comes out loud and clear in your post in response to my last post in this string. What do you gain by eradicating Christianity? You appear to have a great antipathy toward Christianity: much like the apostle Paul, who persecuted Christians at first. Strong feelings either pro or con indicate that you have strong feelings with respect to Christianity. If you were dedicated to the eradication of Christianity, you should be more apathetic and indifferent to it. Have you looked at the pages on A.J. Ayer? You are a proponent of his verifiability principle. The catch is that such a principle cannot be verified. Respectfully submitted by Yours faithfully, drboisclair 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear this a lot, but it's a simple straw man. Verification applies to synthetic claims, not analytic ones, such as the verifiability requirement itself. Maybe this would be more productive if you stuck with the issue at hand, which is whether there's any such documentation. Alienus 00:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree without rancor. I am not setting up straw men if I am responding to persons who actually hold certain opinions. From the antipathy expressed it is a fair assessment that the one expressing that antipathy wants to eradicate Christianity from the mind of man. Mr. Steadman has stated in other posts that he feels that religion should not be taught to the young at all. What do you mean by "synthetic" and "analytic"? (Synthetic=inductive reasoning; analytic=deductive reasoning?) I have erred in not being more specific about the "Verifiability Principle" of A.J. Ayer. It is more specifically: if a statement does not have a way of verifying whether it is true or false, it is a nonsense statement. That principle in itself is a nonsense statement by its own requirement because one cannot verify whether it is true or false. Perhaps the verifiability requirement should be applied to those propositions that can be verified one way or another without making negative judgments about propositions that do not have a way of being verified. I would like to back off of my criticism of those scholars who question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Not because I am inclined to accept academically their conclusions but because they are reputable scholars and have done reputable work. drboisclair 04:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

synthetic and analytic are terms in philosophy that refer to the difference between statements that are true or false by definition (analytic) and those that are true or false because of their relation to something outside of them - usually the "real word" (synthetic). "A bus is a form of public transport" is analytic. It simply defines the meaning of the word bus. "The bus will come in five minutes" is synthetic. It's not true by definition. It's only true if the bus actually turns up. According to Ayer the verifiability principle is analytic, and therefore not subject to its own rule. If one accepted the principle, a statement like "If God wills, the bus will come in five minutes" would be considered meaningless, since there is no possible way of determining how God's will will affect the movements of the bus.

As far as I can see the verifiability principle has no relevance to Rob's arguments. He is not saying that the synthetic proposition "Jesus existed" is meaningless. He simply believes that there is insufficient evidence that Jesus existed. We all believe that about many figures in history. I believe it about King Arthur, Robin Hood, Achilles and many others. I guess you do too, about some, at least, of these figures. This is not about philosophical differences. It's about the interpretation of historical evidence. Paul B 13:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, more appropriately, what academia has said about the interpretation of the evidence. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.Paul B 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

I would have thought the correct title was Jesus myth or maybe Jesus Myth if there's a good rson for th second capital. Rich Farmbrough. 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no preference and defer to the community regarding a move. KHM03 13:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Carrier's credentials

This isn't a big point for me, and I'll defer to the community, but it seems to me that Carrier's status as founder of Internet Infidels is relevant to this article, for context (in the same way that it would be fair to list NT Wright's status as a Bishop as well as a scholar on related pages). We should, in my view, list both the site and his academic creds..."full disclosure" and all that. That's my take...KHM03 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with this. I think people want to know where people are "coming from" by knowing their credentials. drboisclair 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't. The fact that he started a website is not relevant and has no scholarly import. Any Joe can start his own website. Infact just to list that when he has scholarly credentials but are not mentioned almost suggests he has none. His other credentials would be relevant but we are not listing these with any of the other scholars. They are linked to their own page and that information should be there. Also, the link I gave for the Book reivew that he wrote, does take you to the the internet infidels site. Lastly, another reason why this needs not to be mentioned is because some people find the word "infidel" to be negative, so it can bias the reader. Giovanni33 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I think it's fair to say that the immediate reaction of a casual reader is something along the lines of "Richard who?". It's better to at least explain why he's being quoted by associating him with the site. Alienus 17:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he named the site, so if any bias comes from its title, that's really an issue for him, isn't it? The truth is that this is not just the website of any ordinary "Joe". It's far more significant that my blog (which rocks, by the way). I'm not saying that we shouldn't list his academic creds; we absolutely should. But, wouldn't it be fair if we mentioned NT Wright on this page (I'm not sure he's ever written anything regarding this theory) to mention that while he was a scholar, and list his creds, to also mention that he was an Anglican Bishop? I think that would be fair. While Richard Carrier doesn't hold a comparable ecclesiastical position, it would still be a fair thing to mention, in order to provide the reader with context regarding Carrier's (or Wright's, etc.) POV. We don't need to affirm or reject the POV, but we can mention it. KHM03 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok if we also list it along with his academic creds, but currently we are not doing that with any of the the other scholars (or most of them). I just am opposed to the appearence that this guy's only credencial giving him a platform to speak is something that anyone can do: be a founder of a website. Actually instead of listing everyone's credencials we could simply describe him as a scholar who founded Internet infidels. Btw, what's your blog? Giovanni33 07:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please return the rebuttals

Otherwise, this article will continue to be a representation of the lunatic fringe.

It's fringe, but not lunatic. Adding silly criticisms doesn't help. Reintroducing serious criticisms does. Integrating the "before and against" views for specific arguments makes sense to me, but at the moment it's slanted to minimise criticism of the theory. Paul B 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who doubts the historical personhood of Jesus of Nazareth is either ignorant, stupid or insane.

Well, I beg to differ matey. Paul B 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

additions by Trumpetpower!

Ok, Trumpetpower! has made two additions, which I reverted and here's why:

1. "The theory arose from nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as Max Müller and James Frazer, though the idea itself is as old as the New Testament: the Second Epistle of John warns of "many deceivers [who] are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."" Firstly this point has already been made in the opening paragraph, which refers to docetic Christianity. Secondly, this part of the article is about the growth of the scholarly theory, not the gnostic and manichean view of Jesus. Thirdly, this pasage from John can be interpreted many ways.

The article discusses the concept that Jesus is naught but a myth. The focus of the article is certainly upon the modern view, but it is of profound importance that the idea is as old as and is deeply intertwined with Christianity itself. I'd also be fascinated to hear your "interpretation" of II John, as the point of the whole book is to convince "the elect lady and her children" in the most emphatic of terms that she shouldn't pay any attention to the nonsense she may hear about Jesus not being real. TrumpetPower! 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "whole book" in question is here. Do you mean Johannine writings? Sweeping statements about what "the point" of these writings are cannot be made with such confidence. There are and have been many interpretations. Paul B 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2."To critics of the Jesus-Myth, the silence is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews. Advocates counter this response by noting that all the evidence which does exist to support Jesus describes a monumental figure, performing wondrous miracles and butting heads with the most prominent figures of the day, not some inconsequential nobody." Firstly, advocates of the Jesus-Myth theory do not say that Jesus was a "monumental figure", so there is a misuse of the word "advocates" here. You seem in fact to mean advocates of Jesus' existence. Anyway, scholarly advocates of Jesus's existence do not say he was a "monumental" figure who "butted heads" with "the most prominent figures of his day" at all. Yes, the Gospels have him conversing with Pilate etc, but as an accused criminal, not as someone who moves in exhalted social circles. Paul B 22:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels represent not only the best but the /only/ "reliable" information available concerning Jesus. And most of the Gospels describe very public, very notable occurrences. It starts with Herod having all the children in Judea killed in a failed attempt at assassinating the infant Jesus, and with the Three (royal) Wise Men sent as emissaries to witness his birth. Jesus repeatedly upsets the Jewish religious and legal authorities, to the point that Pilate takes the unprecedented action of intervening in a local legal matter--in a way that makes a mockery of both Jewish and Roman law and tradition. It ends with Jesus, resurrected from a most public execution, continuing to preach for a month and a half after his death, before arising to Heaven in spectacular fashion in full view of all of Jerusalem. Inbetween he's doing all sorts of things with huge audiences that would have made him the greatest celebrity of the millennium.

How you can say that he's /not/ a "monumental figure" completely baffles me.

If you can offer some concrete evidence that II John doesn't mean what the plain language says it means, or if you can produce some sources more authoritative on Jesus than the Gospels that support your theory that Jesus was a nobody, then please add them to the article. Meanwhile, I'm adding the edits back in. TrumpetPower! 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a weird jumble of claims. Nowhere do the gospels say that Herod had "all the children in Judea killed". Nowhere do they say that the magi were "royal" or had been "sent as emissaries". Nor do I recall anything about ascending "in a spectacular fashion in full view of all Jerusalem". Yes, they do have JC upsetting Jewish authorities, but that doesn't make him a celebrity. How do you know that Pilate's actions were "unprecedented"? You have access to all the legal precedents do you? Lots of people upset the authorities and lots of people ended up dead for doing so. Faith healers were hardly unknown in those days and wonder-working stores were commonplace. The claim that he would have been "the greatest celebrity of the millennium" depends on applying modern standards to the ancient world. Paul B 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I know we're not supposed to use prejudicial language 'round here, but I'm sorry. I just can't think of any other way to put it. You demonstrate that you don't even know what the Second Epistle of John /is/ let alone what it says, much less its significance or relevance. You demonstrate that you are completely unaware of Matthew 2:16, or Acts 1:9, or Matthew 14:21. You demonstrate that you have no knowledge at all about either the trial or judicial practices of the time--from the violation of the sanctity of both the Sabbath and Pesach, to the unprecedented request for and grant of Roman meddling in provincial affairs, to purposefully killing an innocent man in exchange for the freedom of a guilty one...the whole thing is either the most egregious violation of judicial and civil integrity in the history of Western civilization (accompanied by the most astonishingly successful cover-up ever) or one of the most highly insulting bits of libel set to print.

If you know so little about the Bible and first-century Rome and Judea, why are you editing this page? 06:23, 19 March 2006 unsigned by TrumpetPower!

Yes, TP, why are you editing this page. Paul's criticism of your additions are correct. The reference to the letter of John is grotesque. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TP, this isn't the BBC, if you want to italicise your words putting / signs around them won't work. You need to use two apostrophes on either side. And yes, you are right, this kind of bullying language is not acceptable here. Not that your bluster cuts much mustard. Matthew 2:16 says nothing about having "all the children in Judea killed" as you would know if you had read it. Acts 1:9 says nothing about Jesus' ascension being "in a spectacular fashion in full view of all Jerusalem". It says "as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight". Nothing about anything spectacular or being in full view of Jerusalem. I note that you don't even try to defend your ignorant claim that the Magi were royal, a popular misconsception among people whose Biblical knowledge is derived from watching school nativity plays. It is you who show your ignorance, not me. As for claims about what is "unprecedented", you show little sign that you understand how fragmentary our knowledge of the period is. Absurd hyperbole about "the most egregious violation of judicial and civil integrity in the history of Western civilization" indicates your feeble understanding of power politics at this time (or indeed any other time). You also completely ignore the fact that most non-fundamentalist scholars do not consider the Gospel account to be, well, "gospel". They assume that it is a theologically and politically crafted re-working of events that probably only partially recods what actually happened. Paul B 13:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

First, please indicate that you actually have a hint of what the Second Epistle of John is. All your writing has indicated and continues to indicate that you simply don't know what it is. Second, Matthew 2:16 says, "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men." Third, Acts 1:9 says, "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight." If you knew the local geography and the surrounding verses, you'd know that this was from a hill which can be seen from all Jerusalem, with (presumed) angels making proclamations, etc. Third, no court in /any/ civilized country (or any uncivilized one with a functioning police force, for that matter) would /ever/ let a mob demand the release of the guilty and execute the innocent...and your suggestion that our understanding of the period is so "fragmentary" that one can't conclude that the timing of the trial--in such a way as to violate both the Sabbath and Pesach--was either inconceivable, horribly vulgar, or both demonstrates an astounding ignorance on your part. I'll grant you the extra-Biblical nature of the status of the Magi, though the assumptions of their importance have an exceedingly long history in Church doctrine.

And, finally, the Gospels, true or not, remain the /only/ evidence even remotely credible for the mere fact of Jesus's existence, and the only evidence at all for what he did. If you wish to so casually dismiss their evidence, please either offer some other source to support your guesses as to what "actually" happened or be a man and admit that you have nothing but unfounded speculation to offer.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not interviewing me. Your love of hyperbole and tendency to factual inaccuracy do not augur well. Killing children under the age of two in the vicinity of Bethlehem is not the same as killing all children in Judea, and you know it. Why don't you "be a man" and admit that, just like you might admit that no spectacular ascension is described - "cloud received him out of their sight". That could mean he was enveloped by fog. It certainly does not imply that it could be seen. Anyway, it5 was a hill covered with Olive trees. Your comments on the proceedings are just a projection of modern standards onto the ancient world. I don't casually dismiss the evidence of the Gospels, I adopt the same scepticism that most historians do. You, in contrast seem to ridicule them.Paul B 23:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Some sentences do not come out right

(Maybe this has been rehashed to death already.) I find that the wording "Jesus-Myth" easily leads to ambiguities and several sentences in the text can be read in unexpected ways. For example, who are the "Jesus-Myth opponents"? Those who oppose what they think is a myth, or those who oppose the idea that Jesus is just a myth? And the "Jesus-Myth advocates"? Are they Jesus advocates labeled myth advocates by their opponents?

It seems these ambiguities are real and should be avoided. One method would be to set up a fixed and precise lexicon in the opening paragraphs of the article. Another method would be to use less ambiguous, albeit longer, wordings. For example "advocates of the Jesus-Myth theory" seems less ambiguous than "Jesus-Myth advocates". --PhS 11:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus-Myth refers to the claim that Jesus never existed, but is a mythical person analagous to Orpheus etc. So "Jesu-Myth opponent" means a person who believes he really existed. It's not wonderful phrasing, granted. The term comes from the title of the book "The Christ Myth", but since "Christ" is actually a title rather than a proper name, this might mean no more than that his messainic staus is mythical. Hence, Jesus-Myth is used here. It not an ideal title for the article, but its acceptable. Paul B 13:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I /don't/ find the wording acceptable. I've already had to re-word some of my own things to resolve confusion created by adhering to the existing standard. "Those who favor (adhere to, etc.) (or oppose, reject, etc.) the idea (concept, etc.) that Jesus is a myth" takes more words but is unambiguous. A few extra characters costs nothing and gains much. TrumpetPower! 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also heard it called "the Mythological School." Would something like "the Mythological school's views of Jesus" be appropriate, or is this still too vague. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm quite loath to invent a title for something that doesn't exist. That's why I've simply been stating the description: "those who reject the historicity of Jesus," "those who consider Jesus an ahistorical figure," etc. Contrary to Christian conspiracy theories, there isn't any cabal that's united in its effort to rip Jesus from the pages of history. TrumpetPower! 23:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor is there a Christian cabal (except as a joke), yet I know at least one editor who is convinced there is. That's why I created this template:

This user is a Christian, but refuses to join any cabal.

Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Second Epistle of John

It's not OR to claim that this text was written to counter the literal Jesus as a real man view. In "The Jesus Mysteries; Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" authors Freke and Gandy make exactly that point at the bottom of page 210. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it's perfectly clear that the text is unambiguously discussing those who claim that Jesus Christ is not come IN THE FLESH. One could perhaps make the suggestion that the people being warned against preached that Jesus appeared to be real but was merely an apparition, but even that certainly isn't supported by the plain language of the text. Even so, we would still recognize such a position today as meaning that they though Jesus was a myth, just a more forceful kind of myth than the rest of the article presupposes. TrumpetPower! 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are many possible readings of the sentence in question, but it certainly does not "counter the literal Jesus as a real man view". Instead it emphasises that he was real. One common view is that it is a criticism of docetism, the theory that Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood human, but that his physical form was an apparition. This point has been made in the opening para of the article for a long time. It is completely different from the Jesus-Myth theory, which certainly does not claim that Jesus's body was illusory. It claims he never existed at all. It is misleading to confuse these two ideas. Paul B 23:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The passage was written to--rather vehemently--counter those who didn't think that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood human, and thus establishes that there were people who held such a view, even though the author obviously is doing everything he knows how to convince them of the error of their views. The parallels with the modern debate are so striking it's not even funny.

Sure, you can say that perhaps the people being addressed believed in Jesus, just not a Jesus with a body--even though that's an interpretation not supported by the plain language of the text. But, really, what does that get you? These people would have been in just as good a position to have known the facts as the author of the letter, yet they came to the exact opposite conclusion. That alone speaks volumes as to the (lack of) universality in the early belief in a real man.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the book you refer to, Sophia. Would it be very troublesome to type the extract you mention on this page? In the meantime, I find it unlikely that anyone would think that John was referring to people who didn't think Jesus of Nazareth had existed. AnnH ♫ 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm...I'm sorry, I tried to wrap my head around that triple negative, I really did...but I just couldn't make it stretch far enough. Could you re-phrase? Pretty please? TrumpetPower! 05:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - the weekend has been mad. Here is the quote - they use a slightly different translation of the epistle so I need to change it in the article but didn't have time.

"At the end of the second century various letters attributed to the apostles Peter, John and James were forged to advance the Literalism campaign and to portray the Gnostics as heretics from the true teachings of those who had actually know Jesus. The first Letter of John teaches that the way to discriminate between true teachers and false teachers is that the former acknowledge that Jesus Christ came 'in the flesh'. In the Second Letter of John (a one-page diatribe against Gnostics!) the author warns:

'The world has been invaded by a host of wrong-headed people who won't accept that Jesus has come as the Messiah in the flesh. If you even say hello to them you're a partner in their evil deeds.'"

Clearly Freke and Gandy use this letter (epistle) as proof that there were people around at the time who did not believe hat Jesus had come "in the flesh" ie did not accept Literalism. To be honest - like Trumpet Power I can't see how it could be read any other way - the whole point of the Jesus Myth is that some people thought he hadn't really walked on earth as a man as his story was no different to loads of other myths around at the time. Sophia^TalkTCF 08:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add that Freke and Gandy earlier in the page define the Gnostics beliefs as in the following way:

"...Gnostic insistence that the Jesus story was actually a mystical allegory....." Sophia^TalkTCF 08:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You now seem to be contradicting what you first wrote, "which was that that this text was written to counter the literal Jesus as a real man view". Since that appears under the heading Second Epistle of John, I assume that you are referring to John, when you say "this text". As your quote implies, the text was actually written to support the "literal Jesus as real man" view. Paul B 08:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC

...thus clearly establishing the existence of the contrary position. TrumpetPower! 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That this was intended to oppose doceticism is a common view, and the article has already alluded to this issue. But docetism is not the same as the modern Jesus-Myth theory, and we shouldn't blur the distinction between the two. It evolved into the Manichaean view of Jesus and even finds echoes in the Quran. The Jesus-Myth view does not hold that his body was an apparition, but that his identity is a conflation of material formed in the usal way that mythic figures (e.g. King Arthur) are formed. Paul B 08:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote shows that Freke and Gandy use this epistle to prove that very early on there were people teaching that Jesus did not come in the flesh. They define the Gnostic beliefs as those who though Jesus was a "mystical allegory" - the "Jesus Myth" covers many ideas - this isn't Roman Catholicism - you can't just pin it down to one "flavour" of argument as if it was some sort of dogma. It is referring to a collection of ideas all on the theme that Jesus was not a real flesh and blood historical personage but a myth born of other ideas. Sophia^TalkTCF 08:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The passage from the letter of John clearly refers to some people who deny that Jesus Christ had really taken on flesh - a heresy called Docetism, teaching that his human body was only a fake. However, these guys did also believe that Jesus had come to provide them with salvation, in case of Gnostics with Gnosis. They did not believe that he didn't exist but that he wasn't really human. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You actually make the counter-argument quite well. These people believed in a purely spiritual Jesus who never walked the Earth. Though they clearly thought such a being was "real" in some sense of the word to them, nobody today would mistrake such a claim with anything other than religious mythology. That's not to deny them the power of their beliefs; most believers in a supreme creator god today regard their deity in much the same way as they did their Jesus. But, then, we're clearly not talking about a real man anymore. Personally, though, I still see no reason why the passage could only possibly refer to Docetics, aside from the usual Christian assumption that everybody else in the world already agrees with the facts as they see them. I had a conversation with a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses just Saturday morning that was eerily similar to II John. TrumpetPower! 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that, the way the passage is included in our article is merely a sneer in passing, with no actual contribution to the content.

So, including the passage is inaccurate and superfluous, hence it should be deleted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What your interpretation of the passage says is irrelevant. Freke and Gandy use it in their book "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" to show that there were those at that time who believed Jesus was a "mythical allegory" - that is their definition of Gnostics in this context - they do not just limit it to belivers of Docetism. If a quote from the above book does not belong in this article and is just a "sneer" then please tell me where it does belong? In the UK their book was a surprise best seller and is widely availible in high street shops. It is likely to be the first time the general public comes across the idea that Jesus is myth exists. That sort of stuff hasn't made it onto the RE school sylabus yet. Sophia^TalkTCF 09:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, in my above comment I was referring to the version Trumpet constantly pushed into the article, which contained no reference to proponents but merely stated it as fact. I have now included the common view on this passage. I agree with you that just because what F & G wrote is bullocks doesn't preclude its inclusion (in dePOVed form) into this article. Otherwise, if we restricted this to serious scholarly views, this article wouldn't exist. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What fun if we could set our own rules - I'd go for naturalistic and verifiable by the scientific method myself, rather than scholarly. I have no problem with a NPOV balance - I think Rob is fair to ask for a reference as then the reader can make up their own minds as to who's version is the "bullocks". Sophia^TalkTCF 11:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I think you understood that my remarks were not meant to be included in any way shape or from into the article. They were purely POV! I admit that. Ironically, there's a certain neutrality to be derived from my opinion, since I think all these theories "bullocks" but still would advocate to include them all, in NPOV language of course. Hence, my protest against Trumpet's original version which plainly stated as a fact what is the view of these two writers. That is interpretation but given the historical setting it is quite abit of stretching the text. Hence I included the more commong interpretation. Rob's request is certainly fair. As for "naturalistic and verifiable by the scientific method" - I don't know what you mean exactly, but I guess we agree that 1st century Gnostics were not adherents to "modern science" or "methodological materialism", despite the KJV's translation of "Gnosis" as "Science". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just making a joke - by my rules there would be no religious articles at all(!) - but that would be no fun and would not reflect the importance of these views in the world. I think it's really beneficial to the article when very disparate POV's can come together to fairly represent a view. I have no problem at all with your addition to Trumpet Power's sentence. It gives a more complete view and references for both "sides" will be valuable to the reader. When no one person is trying to make a point and everyone is attempting to balance the article we get the sort of informative NPOV addition we now have (IMO!). Sophia^TalkTCF 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Docetism

The refs provided say what it is (as does the WP article) but do they really show "this interpretation is not widely accepted as scholars commonly consider this passage as a reference to Docetism, a belief distinct from the modern "Jesus Myth". - I don't think so. And should the EB be linked to when it is a subscription service for the entire article?Robsteadman 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The link I used originally was the article itself...I'll have to check that again. Academic consensus (as well as theological consensus) has maintained consistently that the 2 John line is a reference to docetism / proto-Gnosticism. I suppose anyone can claim it refers to McDonald's or Tony Blair or anything else, but that doesn't make the reference academically sound. Freke and Gandy simply aren't taken seriously in the field. Are there scholars who have cited the 2 John passage as a "myth" reference? KHM03 ^(talk) 16:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You say "Freke and Gandy simply aren't taken seriously in the field" - have you evidence for taht? Or is that only amongst "christian" scholars? Robsteadman 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how the field breaks down in terms of religious beliefs; Freke and Gandy aren't NT scholars or historians...just two guys who wrote a book. Scholars engaged in "Jesus research" (such as the Jesus Seminar, which is comprised of both religious and non-religious scholars) don't take these two guys seriously. Where can I find a reference to them taking seriously in academia? KHM03 ^(talk) 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha - so we can use the "jesus" seminar? They that state that most of the NT accounts aren't true.... let's get to work in changing the article to that then!!! Robsteadman 16:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The New Testament is literally all that the Christians have to support the existence of Jesus. They did themselves a great disservice by ripping it all to shreds. I'm surprised any Jesus supporter would want to bring them into this. TrumpetPower! 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes, we can use the Seminar. They don't speak for the entire academy, but they certainly are an important voice (as are some seminar members like Crossan and Borg). KHM03 ^(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And I presume you'd be happy for them to get bigger billing on the "jesus" article - after all they are rather significant and that article sidelines them. Robsteadman 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Seminar's views are certainly "non-traditional", and don't speak for the entire academy. My own view is that the traditional, well known view needs to dominate the Jesus article, esp. in light of the fact that many fine scholars support most or all of the view (NT Wright being one of the current "giants"). That said, I think it's more than reasonable to have a section dealing with other views of Jesus, both religious (Islam, Bahai, etc.) and academic (where, yes, the Seminar should be prominently represented). KHM03 ^(talk) 18:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What don't you think? You don't think the myth theory and docetism are different? Well, I'm not going to argue that there is no connection at all, but the point is that the J-M theory is about how the "Jesus" identity came into being, as a kind of conflation of redemptive theology with liberal-Jewish sayings, possibly a mix of real people etc. It's saying that the process of myth-formation follows a certain pattern, and that this can be discerned in the biblical text. Docetism arises - or so it's usually believed - from ideas about a radical matter/spirit dichotomy, which meant that for some people the idea of god-in-the-flesh was literally unthinkable, so the fleshly being had to be illusion in some sense. It's a very different issue and motivation, even if the conclusions seem to be superficially similar. It's also relevant here to the discussion of J-M theory, because one of the planks of the early forms of the theory was the assumption that dying-reviving gods are in some way innate to human myth-making urges and that "gnostic" ideas pre-dated the supposed lifetime of Jesus. Part of the problem is disentangling the details of these histories.

I think the big problem with the recent edits to the article is that they are turning it away from being about the J-M theory, and into an article that should be titled The Implausibility of Some Things that the Gospels Say. That's not supposed to be what this article is about. Paul B 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the theory that Jesus is a purely mythical figure. The archetypal nature of the Jesus story is integral, of course, but the core of the argument is that there simply isn't any evidence at all that there was any Jesus in the first place. If somebody--anybody--could offer up even the slightest shred of evidence, the question simply wouldn't exist. TrumpetPower! 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of these recent additions are wholly unsupported by anything but assertion, and are presented as fact. They also seriously mix up the the question of historicity with that of historical reliability. Paul B 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The two are inextricably linked. If every single source for a claim is patently ludicrous, and if no reputable source provides independent corroboration of even the simplest and most easily verifiable aspects of the claim, you can be most confident that the question of historicity has been firmly settled. TrumpetPower! 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A further problem is the fact that they will just generate respones from biblical literalists who with add passages arguing that these implausibilities are perfectly plausible and that these contradictions aren't contradictions etc etc. The whole thing will turn into an interminable debate over the reliability of every detail in the gospels. Paul B 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's burn that bridge when we get to it, hmm? TrumpetPower! 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What this article should be about is the theory - how it developed; what the arguments were; how they relate to modern views; who the current and historical exponents of the theory are; how their arguments have been assessed. Paul B 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that there are parts of the article that are lacking, by all means, please fill in the gaps. TrumpetPower! 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ps. I added the Jesus Seminar reference at the end of the article a few days ago. Paul B 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Docetic reference from the intro - it is at best POV dressed up as fact. Docetism is not the same as the Jesus Myth. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Justus

For the record: I removed the Justus section - and it should stay removed. Justus' work only survives in fragments so there's no point in speculating about whether he should have written about Jesus or did or did not or whatever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"[O]nly survives in fragments applies to almost everything from the period. Further, nobody--including Christian apologists who had access to his full works--ever even gave a hint that he might maybe have made such a reference. Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia to protect your religious faith. TrumpetPower! 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reported Str1977 for 3RR on this article. Robsteadman 21:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not just this article, and not just this topic. He insists that the early existence of Christians who didn't believe in a corporeal Jesus has no bearing on modern scholarship that comes to the same conclusion, and that, although the xx.9 reference in Josephus to Jesus is disputed, everybody still agrees that it says that James is Jesus's brother. TrumpetPower! 21:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I know - and he's one of the worst POV pushers around. Sadly it seems two of his "pals", both admins, have seen fit to not block him for two separate 3RR violations this week. And they claim there is no cabal!!!! Robsteadman 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob, for the "compliment" coming from the mouth of someone who knows about such things.

Docetism indeed has no bearing on the JM - at least not enought for the intro and at least not as clearly that it could be stated as fact when it is a POV.

And Trumpet still has not produced any evidence that there is actually a dispute about who this James killed by Ananus is. Not one bit. Dispute yes, but about something else.

As for the fragmentary nature of everything - that's hardly true: we have four large works by Josephus, lots of Pliny and Plutarch - what we have from Justus is what is included in Josephus. But, of course I understand your logic: if you can include Josephus who mentions Jesus among sources supposedly silent about Him (when the plains facts are to the contrary), you can also include someone whose books are not really extant among those silent about Jesus. Why not include the 2nd book of Aristotle's Poetic as well.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That would carry a lot more weight if we actually had the writings of Josephus BEFORE the well-known Christian interpolation. POV-pushing is boring. Alienus 23:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But still, we don't have Justus (except a few scraps interpo .. I mean: quote by Josephus) - so why include him.

The interpolations (one probable, the other one merely possible) pose problems no doubt - but they are not unsolveable and Josephus IMHO does not work well on alleged silence on Jesus.

Of course, the entire section is dubious anyway, as a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack, as it is already based on the conjecture "he should have written something about Jesus" in order to say "but he didn't", and as it flatly flies in the face of the actual evidence for Jesus' existence. OTOH, if Jesus-Mythers argue that way we have to report, albeit in NPOV fasion.

I agree, Alienus, "POV-pushing is boring" but so is combating it. I leave the former to others and concentrate on the latter. It's already enough hard work. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Actual evidence for Jesus' existence"

What "actual evidence for Jesus' existence"? No, really.

There's the Gospels, of course, but even the Jesus Seminar sees them as deeply flawed. Besides, it's hard to take seriously as "factual" something that's talking about gods inseminating virgins, hordes of zombies roaming the streets, and people making remarkably inaccurate predictions about the imminent end of the world--especially when they're written at least a few generations after the fact, self-described as third-generation hearsay. And there's Paul, but he's not only hearsay but pretty clearly not only thought of Jesus as a non-corporeal being but didn't know a thing about the Jesus of the Gospels. He didn't write anything down until at least a generation after the supposed dated of the crucifixion, either.

Then there's the Apocrypha, which even early Christians thought too ludicrous to seriously consider.

After that, we've got two very short passages interpolated into a work written over 60 years after "fact" by a man who wasn't even born until several years after the "fact", and a half-dozen other reports of Christians written about a century after the "fact."

All of that could be of limited use for helping to determine what people some generations down the line thought about what had happened, but none of it at all in any way constitutes "actual evidence for Jesus' existence." That is, all are secondary sources (at best, in the case of Paul--most are tertiary or worse), and we're left not only without any primary sources at all, but without even references to hints of primary sources that once may have existed.

So, honestly now. What "actual evidence for Jesus' existence" is there? If you could offer some, it'd go a long way to resolving the debate. (Not that that's the purpose of Wikipedia, of course....)

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 00:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Str, you want to take that question on your own? I'd be glad to jump in :D. Homestarmy 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have an answer from anybody. Just do please--you know?--actually answer it? I've asked countless Christians countless times, and I've never gotten any response that wasn't limited to the Bible, the Apocrypha, Josephus, and brief second-century Pagan mentions of Christian beliefs. TrumpetPower! 02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Trumpet - here are the sources:

• we have the gospels, four distinct works whose value as a historical source you completely underestimate, despite existing problems.
• To say "even the Jesus Seminar" is absurd, since the JS is not something like the mainstream or the authority - given the leanings of the group it is rather surprising that they accept so much. As a historian I might say that there methodology is deeply flawed.
• Most apocrypha don't provide anything historically useful (quite apart from doctrinal issues). The Church had dealt with these books as it should. No need to delve into them here.
• we have references in Josephus - two mentioning Jesus. They might be interpolated but that doesn't mean that this all was invented. Of course we cannot be certain what FJ originally wrote, but you don't interpolate random passages. Also, you have the bigger picture FJ gives of the 1st century, a picture that is consistent with what the Gospels or Acts give.
• we have a reference in Tacitus
• and one in Sueton
• and last but not least, we have the fact that Christianity exists, for which the life and teaching of Jesus is the most plausible explanation

Now, I know we can discuss these things all day and all of night but it is hardly accurate to simply claim there were no evidence or the evidence were overwhelmingly against Jesus' existence. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

sigh

Yet another tired old rehash, exactly as I predicted, that's "limited to the Bible, the Apocrypha, Josephus, and brief second-century Pagan mentions of Christian beliefs." If it weren't for your religious faith, you'd be just as flabbergasted as I that anybody could take such evidence so seriously.

Don't you realize that your last point "proves" the veracity of every other popular religion in the history of the universe?

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 14:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Str was trying to say the mere existance of Christianity proves anything, but you asked for evidence, not proof. To compare to another situation, as far as I know, evolution is limited to speculation, false findings, supportive policies by unverisities, and a whole bunch of books on the subject. Does that mean it would be fair for me to tell anyone I might debate evolution over that they may not speculate no matter how obvious they may see their inferences, may not try to interprate fossils the way they want to, may not use the support of universities to back them up, and may not use a single book outlining evolution? Homestarmy 14:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of the Theory of Evolution is woefully uninformed and misinformed, but this isn't the place to discuss such things. If you wish to understand the true position of "eviloutionists," rather than attach a strawman, I suggest you spend a good deal of time on the Talk.Origins Web site, and ask questions in the associated USENET froup. TrumpetPower! 15:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The big point is that it's entirely irrelevant what TrumpetPower!, Str1977, or KHM03 think of the evidence...scholars have examined the evidence and believe (with a few exceptions) it is adequate to prove Jesus' existence. We're not here to argue one POV or another, but to reiterate what scholars have said. KHM03 ^(talk) 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that our opinions and interpretations must be limited to secondary sources, there is no restriction on using (summaries of) the facts as reported in primary sources so that the readers may come to their own conclusions (hopefully supported by thorough examination of the referenced primary sources in conjunction with the secondary sources). It is my hope that this article may become just such a summary of the primary sources, accompanied where appropriate by the interpretations and opinions of secondary sources. After all, what could possibly be more NPOV? TrumpetPower! 15:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But what the above editors think is becoming an issue as there is dispute on which sources are "scholarly" enough to count - that's why an RfC is needed. Sophia^TalkTCF 15:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm simply asking that someone we denote a "scholar" have scholarly credentials and/or has been denoted as such by the academy. That isn't the case with Freke & gandy; if I'm incorrect, please let me know. KHM03 (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we use any relevant source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines, which isn't restricted to peer-reviewed scholarship; authors published by large, respectable houses--and this includes Freke & Gandy--are permitted. I have no objection to clarifying people's credentials...but, if we do, I'll probably insist that people at Christian institutions be identified as such. "So-and-so, professor of divinity at such-and-such-seminary, in his work, this-and-that, asserts something-or-other." "Sew-and-Sew, in his-or-her book...." We probably also would need to link to at least stub articles for each author, I suppose TrumpetPower! 15:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind saying that a particular scholar is a professor at Duke or Cambridge or whatever. Also, where scholars have articles, they should be linked. KHM03 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never had a problem with clarifying peoples credentials as this is important information for the reader. I have never reverted edits just because I discounted a particular view as "nonsense". I am in full agreement that ALL credentials should be disclosed with wiki links if they exist. Sophia^TalkTCF 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think people missed my point earlier that the best "actual evidence for Jesus' existence" is Christianity itself. The controversy over the documents is obscuring the fact that historians don't just look at documents. As User:JimWae said elsewhere, they look at people. They look at social and cultural institutions, including Religion. Christianity exists. It had to come from somewhere. I for one find it more likely that Christianity started with an itinerant preacher named Yeshua than that it started with Paul or Philo or any of the other names that have come up. If you don't accept the historical Jesus, then you have to explain why somebody made him up. This isn't absolute proof, but it is actual evidence. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

'If you're going to criticize others for their blatant use of logical fallacies, please don't resort to other fallacies yourself. TrumpetPower! 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. We are not going to convince each other, so why not just agree to disagree? This article is, after all, about the idea that Jesus is a myth. Some arguments are stronger than others. Urban legend makes more sense than conspiracy theory. As KHM03 has noted, weak arguments weaken the article, and strong arguments strengthen the article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page. Stop edit warring. Hash out differences here and when the problems are resolved request the page to be unprotected.--MONGO 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Docetism, part 2

The first problem is with the early identification of Docetism (etc.) as an indication that questions of Jesus's corporeality have plagued Christianity from the start. I support inclusion, and am happy with the text as it stands currently. Can anybody who objects to the current text offer an alternative? Or, perhaps, proof that those who reject Jesus's historicity do not consider it significant that even early Christians couldn't agree on the fact or nature of his existence? TrumpetPower! 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The version to which I objected doesn't say that Jesus-Mythers consider Docetism their forerunner - it said that it was, which is at least POV. Claiming Docetism is nonsensical but if JMers indeed do that it can be reported, but in NPOV fasion. But IMHO the intro is hardly the proper place for that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You write of "Jesus-Mythers" as if there's a single organized group with a strict orthodoxy in a manner that makes as much sense--and is almost as offensive--as me writing of Christers obsessed with eating a dead Jew on a stick. Please stop using the term, "Jesus-Mythers" and adopt more neutral language. I am, quite emphatically, not a "Jesus-Myther"; I am a person who considers both the lack of evidence and affirmative evidence of lack to be overwhelmingly conclusive against the historicity of Jesus, and who also considers Jesus's archetypal heroic nature the most plausible (though certainly not only) explanation for his ahistoricity.

Further, you once again misrepresent the position of those who consider Jesus no different from Hercules et al.

It's not "claiming Docetism their forerunner" that's going on. It's pointing out that, even amongst the earliest Christians, there was no consensus as to whether or not Jesus was "come in the flesh." If you can't see how that gives great weight to the argument against historicity, you're either too blinded by faith or too hell-bent on proselytizing to consider NPOV.

So, I ask again, since you didn't even pretend to address the questions the first time around. Can anybody who objects to the current text offer an alternative? Or, perhaps, proof that those who reject Jesus's historicity do not consider it significant that even early Christians couldn't agree on the fact or nature of his existence?

(Belatedly signed by TrumpetPower! 16:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC))

Trumpet, I certainly will let someone whose posts mainly consist of inaccuracies, insults, ignoring/misrepresenting others views and "zombies" tell me how I should refert to this fringe group.

I don't care whether you are a JMer, but the rest of your comment reveals that you have no idea about the historical craft.

Since you have been explained about Docetism, there's no use in repeating why it and the JesusMyth claim are different. You will not listen. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the ad hominem. I've repeatedly offered solutions and counter-proposals and asked for the same from you. You've yet to offer up any suggested solutions. How do you propose we resolve this? TrumpetPower! 21:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do some people don't understand the concept of "ad hominem"? If I argued: "This is wrong, because Trumpet said it" - that would be "ad hominem". In the preceding post I do not argue, I merely voice my frustration. For the proposal see below. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what irony. Ad hominem can be summarized as: person A makes claim B; there's something nasty about person A; therefore claim B is fallacious. It's something we both seem to have a taste for, but it's not getting us anywhere. TrumpetPower! 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The page was locked so we could hash this out, but I doubt we'll come up with a solution that everyone can agree to. Well, we could always consider peer review or RfC. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it'd be nice if Str1997 could at least offer some kind of counter-proposal. I consider it of profound importance that early Christians disagreed on Jesus's very corporeality; as repeatedly pointed out, Freke and Gandy at least agree with me. Yet Str1997's only interest is in deleting all mention of this fact from the very article where it's most relevant. I wonder why a good Catholic would do such a thing...? TrumpetPower! 21:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously as a good Lutheran, I disagree with Catholics on many things. I can't answer for Str1977. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my proposal: we include a note that says that Freke et al. cite John's letter as ... but also include the caveat that this is a uncommon interpretation, maybe with a reference to Docetism as a different concept. This all in NPOV language and with clarity on the authority of Freke et al. We ommit any reference to Docetism or John's letter from the intro. IMHO that's a fair proposal.

PS. You accusations don't help making your case.

PPS. I have taken the liberty of correcting my name in your post. I am not a schoolchild anymore. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to omitting the mention in the introduction. The purpose of the introduction is to set the stage, and the II John citation establishes that the debate over Jesus's very presence on Earth is as old as Christianity itself. It also serves to demonstrate that position that Jesus is ahistorical, though a minority position, is not a new one. I suspect it's primarily for the latter reason that you object to the inclusion in the introduction; you denigrate the position at every opportunity, and granting it even the slightest hint of respectability would seem anathema to you. So, with that in mind, if you can't possibly swallow the introduction as it currently stands, can you offer any alternative form that establishes the millennia-old nature of the debate? (Yes, of course, the nature of the debate has changed profoundly--but so has Christianity itself. Feel free to suggest something that incorporate such a caveat.) TrumpetPower! 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd object but I was fulfilling your wish anyway. The intro is supposed to set the stage and give a brief overview. Hence, 2 John has no place there as it is merely a disputed interpretation. You even make the point clearer: "establishes that the debate over Jesus's very presence on Earth is as old as Christianity itself" or "ahistorical ..."- well, that might be what Freke claims but it is inaccurate - this debate isn't as old as Christianity itself (and BTW, I though the NT was sooo late?, according to your other posts). I cannot swallow putting a lie into the intro, so there's no point in asking again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The lie is yours, in claiming--or, at the least, strongly implying--that early Christians were unified in their belief that Jesus walked the earth at some point in the recent past. Indeed, I've been sketching out a new section for this article devoted to exactly that topic. We've got Valentinus, Basilides, the Ophites, Marcion, Theophilus, and more. I'm sorry, but you're either going to have to concede somehow to some sort of indication up front that early Christians (not to mention non-Christians--I'll be getting to them, as well, of course) took a position supportive of the ahistoricity of Jesus or be prepared to go even further down the Wikipedia dispute resolution path. TrumpetPower! 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Str1977's suggestion. The 2 John theory is so outside mainstream Biblical scholarship & historical understanding that it does little for the Jesus myth argument other than cause embarrassment and demonstrate a lack of understanding/expertise on the part of Freke & Gandy. Are there other folks who think the same thing about 2 John, or is that unique to these two writers? It fails in demonstrating the age of the Jesus myth argument, since scholars disagree completely with the Freke/Gandy suggestion. KHM03 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been pushing for 2 John because it's an example, in the Bible itself, of early Christians who rejected an historical Jesus. Perhaps you'd care to offer some other alternative that helps put the question in its proper historical perspective? TrumpetPower! 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See the bottom of the page for my response. I've read reviews of the book rather than the book itself, so I could very well be wrong. If so, correct me. The thing is, I think that people are talking past each other. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that several of the contributors on this talk page can't get past their religious convictions...or their hate thereof...to present an accurate and scholarly article on this subject. This article is about the "Jesus-Myth"...not a discussion of whether it is right or wrong. It should be submitted as a description of the belief. Links should be provided to related articles that refute it. I wouldn't write an article on the origins of oil titled "organic origins of oil" and then proceed to present "inorganic" theories. Many of you are blinded by your bias.

Justus, part 2

The second problem is with the paragraph that asserts that Justus could reasonably have been expected to have written of Jesus's dealings with Jewish and Roman political and religious figures. The objection baffles me, frankly; the Gospels clearly record Jesus as having been of great importance to the very people Justus wrote about. Once again, I'm satisfied with the text as it currently stands and am interested in suggestions for alterations. TrumpetPower! 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Justus' work does not survive except in quotes by Josephus. How can we say what Justus wrote or what he didn't wrote? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Photius explicitly said so. Next question? TrumpetPower! 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright. Photius said so. However, then we should also include Photius' philological judgement on Justus, as well as Josephus'. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that the premise of the entire section is questionable: conjecture about what some one should have written is no basis for demanding that the subject is fictional because the author hasn't written on what you though. Lack of Evidence is not evidence of lack, especially if there is other evidence on the subject (see above). But even if we accept the premise, to include a non extant authors is ridiculous. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lack of evidence does become evidence of lack in two specific cases: first, when one performs an exhaustive search of the domain, and second when one performs a partial search that includes part of the domain which must include evidence in the case of existence.

And, it just so happens, both apply to the case of Jesus. Aside from Paul, you can't point to a single non-anonymous non-mythic source written less than sixty-five years or so after your best guess of when all this may or may not have happened by a man who wasn't even born at the time--and you yourself admit that that source suffers from Christian interpolations. With Paul, you can't point to a single non-spiritual biographical fact that places your hero at a particular time and place in history. The rest of your sources just identify that Christians worshipped a god they called "Christ," which does as much to prove his existence as the New York Times did to prove that Xenu blew up some volcanoes. We've searched the whole room, and we don't see any elephants hiding in the corners.

The list of sources you object to primarily helps emphasize the thoroughness of the search, but it includes examples where Jesus must have been noticed if he were real. If he only matched the Jesus Seminar's stripped-down parody of Jesus, Philo would have had to have noticed him, and a number of the others really should have as well. And if he matched the Gospel's version of him, not a single person on that list should have failed to mention him, at least in passing.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 14:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To perform an "exhaustive search of the domain" you have to invent a time machine. To perform a "partial search of the domain" you have to acknowledge that the search is indeed partial, and avoid making an argument from silence. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If we do, Trumpet, do an exhaustive search of the domain, as far as extant (!), we are not allowed to exclude evidence on whim, as you do. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that there are parts of the article are missing, you should add the missing parts--not delete the ones you don't like. I've yet to do as you regularly do--that is, exclude by deletion. So, as above: how do you propose we resolve this? TrumpetPower! 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously was referring to the evidence for Jesus' existence which you constantly fail to acknowledge or wish away with a few ideological strokes. As far as Justus goes, do you really want to base your argument on the silence (as reported by Photius) of a dodgy historian from the first century? I will remove the disputed tag and edit this section accordingly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Or rather, I would. I forgot that the page is protected. I would have written something mentioning the criticism of Josephus and Photius against Justus' writings. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Title

I've always been disturbed, and, frankly, somewhat offended, by the title of this article. "Jesus-Myth" is a term often used sneeringly by Christians to denigrate those who don't even deign to acknowledge the mere existence of their Lord and Savior. It's often associated with a presumption that there's an organized heretical orthodoxy that presents a unified front in the fight against Jesus, a presumption that's both false and defamatory. Anybody who's ever questioned the historicity of Jesus and subsequently been insultingly told, "Oh, so you're a Jesus-Myther" can relate. I know of no person who self-describes with such an appellation, and, the title of a book notwithstanding, nobody who rejects the historicity of Jesus who describes the position as "Jesus-Myth."

When the article is unprotected, I'd like to suggest changing the title to "Jesus as myth."

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To me, that title sounds more like it's leaning towared some sort of theological examination of Jesus assuming Jesus didn't exist, rather than looking at the arguments of those who do not believe Jesus existed. Homestarmy 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...good point. Any suggestions? "Ahistoricity of Jesus" might work...but it also might cause confusion. "Jesus isn't real" is inflammatory, and "Jesus never existed" is inflammatory and already taken.... TrumpetPower! 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well do the people who subscribe to this theory ever give themselves a name, even a simple one? Homestarmy 16:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...good point. Any suggestions? "Ahistoricity of Jesus" might work...but it also might cause confusion. "Jesus isn't real" is inflammatory, and "Jesus never existed" is inflammatory and already taken.... TrumpetPower! 16:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why Jesus-Myth is insulting to proponents of the theory, whereas "Jesus as myth" isn't, not that I care which title is used, so long as we are clear that this is not the Historicity of Jesus article or a Reliability of the Gospels article. Paul B 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's insulting because Christians have invented it to describe the position and because they use it in an insulting manner. As to the reliability of the Gospels...well, I'm afraid that they will, indeed, be challenged. After all, they're really the only "evidence," such as it is, for the historicity of Jesus...and, to be frank, they've got as much reliability as any other collection of religious mythology you'd care to name. Much less, actually--the Gospels make the fatal mistrakes of contradicting themselves at every opportunity and of making very specific claims about historical events which can trivially be proven ludicrously false. Most other religious mythicists had the good sense to set their stories in the unidentified past or even a previous age before the dawn of Man. It's a poor foundation indeed to use for the basis of historicity claims, and countering those claims is what this article is all about. TrumpetPower! 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase is a variation of Christ Myth, which is the title of the book by the main early proponent of the theory. Saying it's insulting because Christians use it as an insult isn't much of an argument. They use "Atheist" as an insult too. Right-wingers use the word "liberal" as an insult. Left-wingers use the word "fascist" as an insult. etc etc. None of these usages make the words themselves into insulting expressions. As for the Gospels, there are lots of good reasons for taking the view that the gospels refer to real events. In my view they refer to real events in a highly distorted fashion, and that, as it happens is also the view of almost all non-Christian scholars of the period. There are no comparable myths that were created out of thin air so shortly after the events they describe, which refer to real people in a real social context with circumstantial details about individuals involved - their jobs, where they lived, the rooms they met in etc. I'm not a Christian myself, so I have no axe to grind. I certainly think its plausible that the new religion "caught on" so rapidly because it meshed with cults that already existed. Whether it actually took anything from them as its theology formed is a moot point. But I don't think you can compare the gospel stories to other "collections of religious mythology". Paul B 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But you beg the question by assuming it's "so soon" after the "fact." The Gospels weren't even written until at least a couple generations after the "fact"; the few people still alive old enough to have adult memories anything would have been in or near their dotage. More importantly, that 70 CE figure is a minimum, as that's when the Temple was destroyed. Another decade or two after that is much more realistic, and sometime early in the second century isn't at all unreasonable. Further, we don't have any clue what the Gospels said then; it's not for almost another century that they solidified. Finally, we don't know the "actual" dates--persecuted as an infant by Herod and executed by Pilate could just as well mean dates of 37 BCE to 26 CE, and that's assuming that it wasn't originally, say, Herod who did the crucifying. We just don't know what the Gospels originally said, and, like with the Christian interpolations into Josephus, it's rather silly to try to make conclusions from the information we do have.

Most scholars date the gospels from c70-100, with some variation. Compare that to the development of the myth of King Arthur. That was over a period of several hundred years, and even in the absense of contemporary evidence, most historians still believe there was a historical Arthur who a major battle at somewher called Mount Badon. The detail and historical proximity of material on Jesus is a lot greater. Paul B 18:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never liked the hyphen as that is not what someone would type for a search. As for simple names - we save those for the other views! Sophia^TalkTCF 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus myth without the hyphen already redirects here. Hyphen or no hyphen makes little difference to me! Paul B 17:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I created that redirect, for the very reason that SOPHIA mentioned. As for the rest, when you're talking about the nonexistence hypothesis, you are talking about a Jesus Myth rather than a Christ Myth. I wish people would stop confusing Jesus with Christ. Obviously Christians such as myself believe that Jesus was Christ, but there are plenty of people who believe that Jesus was real and Christ is a myth. By analogy, I believe there is a man who calls himself Jehovah Wanyonyi, but I don't believe that he is Jehovah. Or do I have to bring up David Koresh again?

As I understand it, the original Christ Myth argued that there was a real historical Jesus of Nazareth who became deified by his followers. I'm getting tired of hearing the argument that if Jesus wasn't Christ, he didn't exist either. That seems highly illogical to me. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the reasons for preferring the title "Jesus Myth" to "Christ Myth" are already discussed in the section entitled Some sentences do not come out right above. The original book is equivocal about whether a "real" person existed, but essentially argues that a historical Jesus cannot be recovered, so to all intents and purposes he is mythical. It was an attack on liberal Protestantism of the time, and was in some ways arguing in favour of accepting the mythic Jesus as more meaningful than any puny historical individual. Paul B 19:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, the argument is that there never was a Jesus, therefore the Christ character was made up from scratch, without historical basis in a single individual. Alienus 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is starting from the assumption that there never was a Jesus. You can't use that as an argument for the nonexistence hypothesis; if you try, you create a tautology. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the rationale for having this as a separate article from Historicity of Jesus? The two seem to cover roughly the same ground. john k 18:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In its current form, the difference is not at all clear. In fact this article is supposed to be about the theory that Jesus was a mythic being, an idea developed in the late nineteenth century and repeated on-and-off by some authors since. That's what it was about until around a week ago. Paul B 18:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Of couse, if Jesus was a mythic being, than there is no historical Jesus. Hence the confusion. Hence the controversy, for that matter. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Barlow also mischaracterizes the argument. The modern form of the argument, of course, is a century-and-a-half old, but it has its roots inextricably intertwined with Christianity itself--just look at the wild proliferation of heretics in the early church, many of whom rejected all or part of the biography as we know it today.

And, let's be brutal for a moment. For century upon century, to question dogma was to put your very life in danger. Of course criticism of the core of Christianity is recent, because it's only been in the past few centuries that you could voice such criticism and not lose your life. And it's not like somebody flipped a switch that permitted free criticism; modern Biblical scholars are mostly in the same institutions (or their descendants or cousins) as the ones that were the worst persecutors.The Jesus Seminar, for example, is remarkable for its demonstration of how much criticism of doctrine is--and isn't--permitted today.

I know, I know. Conspiracy theory and all that. But do let's remember that there's not much more time between now and when people were burned at the stake vs. the time between the supposed dates of the person in question and the time the Bible was finalized in its current form.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Content

There is some truly apalling stuff in this article. The parts that are treating Jesus using a mythological approach is reasonable but the arguments about whether Jesus really existed belong at Historicity of Jesus. Frankly some of the things written here wouldn't get pass marks in a high school test. Here's an example:

"Flight to Egypt: If the holy family weren't living incognito they would have been recorded by Philo". Well at that time they were an obscure carpenter and his family - how incognito do you think they were? Some of the 'contradictions' is stuff that's dealt with much better elsewhere. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, these arguments are actually an insult to the scholars who proposed they myth theory. Paul B 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But they weren't "an obscure carpenter and his family." It was the infant Son of God whose birth was announced by angels and foretold by the Star of Bethlehem...which led the Magi to seek Herod's assistance in locating the family, and which in turn led to Herod's unprecedented mass infanticide.

If you can point to a source that says Jesus spent his youth in Egypt but which doesn't also describe him as the most famous and infamous child in all of history, I'd like to know about it.

As to whether or not this content belongs in Historicity of Jesus, that page concerns Jesus's historicity. This one concerns his ahistoricity. Besides, both articles are a bit long as it is--combining the two would be insane.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 17:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your mixing categories again. There are plenty of people who reject the "infant son of God" and the whole infancy narrative, but still accept an obscure carpenter and his family. Frankly, the obscure carpenter would have been completly lost to history if he had not started preaching in the last year or three of his life. God or not, he was charismatic enough that his followers built a religion out of it. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, assuming that Christianity really is rooted in the teachings of some guy named Jesus. As this article points out, not everyone agrees. Alienus 18:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Alienus, neither can I prove him wrong. Alienus is being more logical than those who argue that if Christians are wrong about Jesus being God, everything they say about Jesus is wrong, including his very existence. It is one thing to say that the historical data is uncertain. Data about ancient history is always uncertain. However, the following argument contains an undistributed middle:

• Christians say that Jesus is God
• God does not exist
• Therefore, Jesus did not exist.

It's a logical fallacy; the historical consensus is that Jesus existed as a man. The divinity of Jesus is the province of religion. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: You can't start from the assumption that Jesus didn't exist and use it as proof of the nonexistence hypothesis. That would be a tautology. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict with Arch O. La] Alienus, that is not the point. The point is that Trumpet is, once again, assuming that if the contemporary material doesn't support every single thing talked about by the Gospels (and most scholars reject the mutually exclusive infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke as later inventions), then that is evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. Which is ridiculous. For Trumpet's arguments to have any power, they have to argue as much against people who accept a real "Jesus of Nazareth" who was not the son of God, or liberal Christians who accept that every word of the gospels may not be literally true, as they do against fundamentalist Christians. Instead, Trumpet seems to be arguing that because we don't find notice of things that even most Christians wouldn't insist on as representing literal truth (this ridiculous straw man about zombies wandering through Jerusalem, for instance), this is somehow evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. The other point, that Historicity of Jesus is about Jesus's historicity and this article is about his ahistoricity, is absurd. The two are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot be discussed without discussing the other. It is not wikipedia's article to create two separate articles to represent separate POVs. john k 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is poorly written, and surely the writers and scholars who support the theory that Jesus never existed (albeit a tiny minority) would hope that their positions would be better represented. Given the heat surrounding this article, I'm not sure what can be done. KHM03 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC, anybody? That was SOPHIA's suggestion. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus is not the same thing as the Truth of the New Testament

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but since Trumpet seems to be here entirely to elide this distinction, I want to say it straight out. The question of the historicity of Jesus is merely whether there was a figure named Jesus, who was executed in Judaea by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate sometime around 30 CE, and who was the center of a Jewish sect which grew into early Christianity.

It has nothing to do with whether or not there was a massacrte of the innocents, or a star of Bethlehem, or an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, or "zombies wandering around Jerusalem," or whether actual apostles wrote the gospels, or whether the words of the gospels are literal truth, or whether Jesus rose from the dead, or walked on water, or raised Lazarus from the dead, or any of that stuff. There are plenty of people, including the central consensus of Biblical scholarship, who are willing to accept that none of this was true, but at the same time assert that Jesus was a historical person. Any argument that Jesus did not, in fact, exist, has to be aimed not at Christian fundamentalists, who are an easy target, but at the broad consensus of secular scholars who accept Jesus's existence. john k 18:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, this is a minority view, barely a blip on the academic radar. But, there are articles about even more obscure topics. Yes, we would have a better article if we trimmed much of the peripheral stuff that proves little. Good luck. While I think it's hilarious and completely untrue that we sometimes hear of a Christian cabal (evidence of Olver Stone-type paranoia at Wikipedia!), there is an equally adamant "atheistic cabal" (for lack of a better term) which insists on making its voice heard. That's not necessarily a bad thing, until they start to violate WP:NPOV (esp. this) and WP:NOR. KHM03 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is an argument against religion, it's an argument against God, and therefore an argument against the divinity of Jesus. However, some athiests accept the historical Jesus, and some do not. Some even have empathy with some of his moral teachings. The problem is not Athiesm. The problem is not Skepticism. The problem is that some of the Debunkers (which are only a subset of Skeptics) are as vitriolic as the Religiots. Extremists on both sides polarize the debate and frustrate those of us who are trying to work from the center. There's a reason "TCF" is in my signature. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to nit-pick, atheism doesn't the capital letter, and it's no more "against" God than it is "against" Apollo or Brahma...or YHWH or Zeus or any other god. TrumpetPower! 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism is a rejection of all gods, a rejection of the god hypothesis itself. Which only means that, if true, Jesus could not have been God because there is no such thing. To say that Jesus was also not a man, just an idea, is to go beyond atheism. BTW, I use the capital leter to refer to schools of philosophy. For example, there are skeptics, and then there are Skeptics. Not necessarily the same thing. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But rejecting the historicity of Jesus and atheism are completely orthogonal positions. There're devout Jews who reject the historicity of Jesus; have they somehow gone "beyond atheism"? Heck, even some early Christians rejected the historicity of Jesus, and I'm sure some still do today. Have they gone "beyond atheism"? TrumpetPower! 23:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They may be orthogonal, but they are not the same thing. As you yourself point out, not only atheists but some Jews and Christians reject the historicity of Jesus. Also, there are some atheists who accept the historical Jesus but obviously see him quite differently than Christians do, as a philosopher of ethics rather than as a god incarnate. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Atheism and the historicity of Jesus don't intersect at all (i.e., are orthogonal). Sure, there's bound to be overlap that tends towards one position or the other on various points--I'm sure there's a higher percentage of Jews and atheists who reject historicity in comparison with Christians who do--but there's really no connection at all between them. Certainly, one position isn't "beyond" the other. TrumpetPower! 00:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're just saying the same thing in different ways. By "beyond" I meant that the reasoning leading to the conclusion that there was no historical Jesus relies on something other than Athiesm. In much the same way I can say the historical Jesus is beyond religion, "beyond" because it relies on historical metholodology rather than on theology. Definitely devout Jews and Christians are going beyond Athiesm because they're not athiests! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think follow you now. I understood your use of "beyond" in the sense of "transcend," that it included and went one step further. Instead, you mean that they're distinct from each other, completely unrelated except by a coincidental correlation in the position of proponents (with which I would heartily agree). Right? TrumpetPower! 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Impeaching the Gospels

Y'all completely miss the point about criticism of the Gospels. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of some obscure carpenter's son who became a preacher. Zip, nada, nothing. The notion is entirely fabricated as a last-ditch effort to salvage some sense of an historical Jesus from the Gospel narrative.

The ONLY source we have for ANY biographical information at all about Jesus is the Gospels, and the fact that the gospels are so ludicrous and libelous is itself one of the strongest arguments against Jesus's historicity. After all, all we know of him comes from a pack of liars who can't even keep their own stories straight. In my opinion, this single argument could stand on its own as conclusive proof that there wasn't ever any Jesus--the rest is just icing on the cake.

"Zombies roaming the streets" isn't a straw man at all. One of the very few sources we have mentions it in conjunction with the "fact" that Jesus was crucified. You reject the notion of zombies roaming the streets as obvious myth, but not the notion of an heroic godman unjustly murdered by the establishment? What, pray tell, is the difference?

Besides, the "fact" that Jesus was a carpenter or carpenter's son is one of the least-well identified parts of his biography. Why does everybody so fixate on it?

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 18:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What do zombies have to do with Jesus? Wrong religion. There are no zombies anywhere in the Gospels!!!Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. It's right there in the article--Matthew 27:45-54, "the graves opened and dead saints 'appeared unto many' in Jerusalem." ((unsigned}}

You're confusing ressurection with zombies. They're concepts from different belief systems. Apples and oranges: they're both fruits, but they're not the same thing.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, I'm not confusing anything. Despite its African roots, zombie is a perfectly good term for a reanimated corpse, which is exactly what Matthew describes. Besides, if they were resurrected, it certainly wasn't in the same sense that either Jesus or Lazarus was. And you're still dodging the point--that this source, which represents a very large percentage of all sources we have for the simple fact of the crucifixion, is so ludicrous that any rational person would reject the whole thing outright. TrumpetPower! 19:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, Christianity itself (the institution, not the documents) is the best evidence for Jesus. It's not absolute proof, but it is evidence. If there was no Jesus, then why make him up? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from being, as I noted above, the logical fallacy of using the popularity of opinion to determine the facts of the matter, your arguments are equally suited to providing evidence as to the veracity of every popular religion, ever. Why make Jesus up? Why do all religions make sh...tuff up? TrumpetPower! 19:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the popularity but the very existence of Christianity that I cite as evidence. Nor do you have to agree with all of Christianity to accept the historical Jesus. I believe that Mohammad was a real historical person, but that doesn't make me a Muslim. I believe that Siddhartha Gautama was a real historical person, but that doesn't make me a Buddhist. I maintain this regardless of how popular Christianity, Islam or Buddhism may or may not be. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, scholars consider the Gospels and the rest of the NT (some of which predates the Gospels) to be more than adequate evidence for Jesus' existence. What we think is irrelevant...the academy has already spoken (granted, with a very tiny minority believing Jesus to be myth). No point in arguing this here. KHM03 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Though it skirts close to the edge of Wikipedia policy, I would argue that this, too, is the same logical fallacy that I accused Archola of above, which is why I advocate making (summaries of) the primary sources be the focus of the article with suitable commentary from the secondary sources--your "scholars"--as appropriate when the consensus here is that clarification is required. My first question, of course, is what primary source do these "scholars" cite to support their position that there was a person who matches their description of Jesus? Because it certainly contradicts the description to be found in the Gospels, and I'm not aware of any other sources they could be drawing from. TrumpetPower! 19:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, point taken, but I should point out that one can take the Gospels and the institution of Christianity as evidence without agreeing with everything Christians (or the Gospels) say. KHM03 is right, there is no point in arguing because we are not going to convince one another. We simply have conflicting basic beliefs. While I do not agree with the Jesus Myth idea, I do think it deserves an article, and I also agree with KHM03 and others who have said that the article would be stronger if it presents the stronger arguments in favor of the idea. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't merely have conflicting beliefs. We have a dearth of evidence on the one hand, "supported" by the exact kind of unfounded POV speculation that Wikipedia so abhors (even if the speculation is by "scholars"), and mounds of straightforward evidence against existence that requires no such interpretation. TrumpetPower! 19:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TrumpetPower, of course there is "zero evidence" once you exclude all the evidence. To most scholars' minds, the Gospels, the Epistles, and the brief references in sources like Josephus and Tacitus are considered to be more than sufficient evidence for the existence of some actual personage named "Jesus" on whom the Jesus of the New Testament is based. I would add that I most certainly reject "the notion of an heroic godman." As I said before, I am not a Christian, and have never been one, and I am quite sick of being accused of one just because I defer to the vast majority of critical scholarship on the subject of Jesus's existence. john k 20:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're at least starting to understand the argument, even if you don't agree with it.

The Gospels are late, anonymous and self-described hearsay; and they're rife with blatant factual errors, irreparable internal contradictions, and obvious and laughable myth. Excluding them is rational.

The Epistles are late, self-described hearsay, and provide no biographical details even when the poorest student of rhetoric would instinctively include them. Even if one doesn't exclude them, they don't actually provide any evidence to consider.

Josephus is the obvious victim of Christian vandalism. Excluding that fabrication is rational.

Tacitus and the others just report on the fact that Christians worshipped a god they called Christ, and makes no mention of Jesus at all. As with the Epistles, even if one doesn't exclude them, they don't actually provide any evidence to consider.

So, what's left? Just like you say, there's "zero evidence." On what basis, then, could these "scholars" possibly come to any conclusion about an historical Jesus? There's no evidence of any carpenter-cum-preacher, even in the sources they do cite.

And, of course, that's not to mention all those in a position to record something--anything--about Jesus, who must have even if he were a carpenter-cum-preacher and who didn't notice a thing. And there's the archetypal mythic nature of Jesus, and....

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Trumpet - no one is trying to argue that the Gospels are a source on the level of, say, Thucydides (who himself made up all the speeches...). But that doesn't mean they're entirely worthless. As I said before, Mainstream scholarship has gone to considerable pains to try to figure out what from the Gospels can be treated as reliable, and what cannot. At any rate, at the very least, the Gospels provide evidence that in the late 1st century, there was already a well-developed account of the life of Jesus, at a time when people who had lived through the time period of Jesus's life would have still been alive. Paul's remarks about Jesus, similarly, indicate that Christians already existed in Paul's time, and that their worship was based around a Jesus who is, in most respects, at least recognizable as the same person as the Jesus of the Gospels. Josephus may be an interpolation, but this has yet to be demonstrated convincingly, and most scholars seem to feel that only parts of the references to Jesus are interpolations. And you are completely wrong about Tacitus, who says, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." This seems to be a fairly clear, and reasonably early, confirmation of a Jesus who is recognizably the Jesus of the Gospels (he was a guy who was executed in Judaea by Pilate, and had followers called Christians.) Lucian also talks specifically about Jesus, although he's later. But now you'll just argue that Tacitus and Lucian obviously got their information from Christians, so it's worthless. john k 23:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made the point elsewhere that to assume that Jesus was crucified in or about 33 CE is a circular argument, and I don't care to re-hash that bit right now. Even still, I'm far from the only one who considers the Tacitus reference highly suspect. Remember, this is the same passage that asserts that Nero "fiddled" while Rome burned. Even still, this is nearly a century later by a man born in the second half of the century who was obviously familiar with Christian doctrine. Reasonably early? Hardly, and it's weak evidence at best, even if we take it at face value. TrumpetPower! 00:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tacitus never asserts that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. What he says is:

Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Mæcenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, [p. 378] the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.

So Tacitus is saying that there was a rumor that Nero sang of the destruction of Troy, but Tacitus does not say that rumor was true. So well done again. Why do you make bold assertions on topics you know absolutely nothing about? john k 19:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do please learn the significance of "scare" quotes before going off half-cocked, hmmm? TrumpetPower! 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with John K) Trumpetpower, we have conflicting basic beliefs, a dearth of evidence (not surprising since this is literally ancient history), different value judgements on the validity of the existing evidence, different methodologies, and different interpretations of the extant evidence based on all of the above. Enough uncertainty that nothing can be absolutely proven, and reasonable people will disagree even on what is and is not POV. All of which is beside the point. We are here to explain the position of the mythological school, not to debate its validity. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

TrumpetPower!, you are entitled to your opinion, but we can't put it in the article (not that you're suggesting we do). Scholars believe the Gospels (and other NT documents...can't forget them) to be 1st century documents...not too late at all. They see them as legitimate sources and good pieces of evidence. You (and I) don't have to agree with them, but we can't misrepresent their views, either. There's plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence, according to academia. We needn't argue about that, even if we don't like their conclusions. KHM03 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember - what KHM03 or TrumpetPower! or any other Wikipedia edior thinks of how scholars have evaluated evidence is irrelevant. We're not here to post our own views in these articles, but to state what the academy feels. In the academy, the Jesus myth theory is a small minority, like it or not. So, we need to state that and move on. KHM03 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. However, Freke and Gandy are relevant here. Or perhaps not. Are we talking about scholarly opinion or popular opinion on the mythological school? As some editors at Jesus noted long ago, the idea is more popular among the latter than the former. Which is yet another example of argumentum ad populum. It cuts both ways. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(In response to KHM03):

It's precisely because this topic is so controversial that I advocate making the focus be on the primary sources, and limiting secondary sources to explicative commentary on the primary sources where editors feel it necessary. It's why I added the sections that address the relevant primary sources in the first place.

Permit me to, once again, plead for even a hint of evidence for this hypothesized carpenter-cum-preacher. Where on Earth do these "scholars" get this idea? Surely, if it's so popular, somebody can offer up an explanation?

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 20:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, again, what I think of the evidence isn't relevant. Scholars believe that the 27 NT books plus the various non-NT works (like Thomas' Gospel) are more than enough evidence for Jesus' existence. So, we don't need to debate this here. We just need to state what the experts have already stated, regardless of how we feel about their conclusions. Please review WP:NOR. KHM03 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

While it's important to state the conclusions of the "experts," I think it's also important to state what the "experts" use as their primary research. Obviously, my personal POV is that the experts have made conclusions not founded on the primary sources--and that, incidentally, is a key argument from those "experts" who do reject the historicity of Jesus. By focusing on primary sources and using secondary sources only for the analysis they provide, I think we can make everybody happy.

Unfortunately for many, the Gospels are the principal primary source, and few Christians appreciate seeing their holy text exposed to academic scrutiny--especially as it fares so poorly in such a context.

Yet again, if somebody could only offer some evidence for this regular-guy Jesus that all the scholars seem to think is in there somewhere....

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 20:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't mind critical scholarship re: the NT. Scholars who utilize "higher critical" tools (I would refer to these scholars as "mainstream") have maintained that Jesus existed, and that the NT is a legit source. Jesus myth folks don't have to agree, of course, but they run counter to scholars. This article isn't an apology or critique of the NT...it's a statement of what the Jesus myth supporters believe, why, and how their view is situated in the academy. Scholars have offered the NT as evidence...you don't have to like it, but we need to represent their views, not ours. KHM03 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

They're barely popular among either group, which is part of the point. But they are non-scholars, non-experts, and their views are "populist" in nature...just two guys who wrote a book that got some media coverage. While we should certainly mention them, we need to treat their work honestly. KHM03 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said argumentum ad populism, it's more to the point. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very difficult to provide evidence when evidence is excluded from being evidence. Reminds me of Flatland, we're reading it for math class because we got ahead this semester, every time the sphere tried to convince the square that there was a 3rd dimension, the square kept throwing out all the evidence because it seemed "ridiculous", and in fact tried to attack the sphere, to pretty much no effect. Homestarmy 20:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A better analogy might be the one that a wise woman once gave me: trying to understand a different worldview is like trying to explain color to the colorblind. You can explain optics and all the properties of light, but that doesn't mean that someone will "get" color if they don't already experience it. There have apparently been straw men arguments on both sides, but I think this comes not from malice, but rather from a lack of communication/understanding between the two sides. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Only that the "worldview" in question here is not so much Christianity (though the analogy applies here as well), but the methodology of historical scholarship. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true if you limit it to critical scholars. In which case it's historical methodology on one hand, and the methodology of the Philosophy of Religion on the other. Neither of which has anything to do with the validity of Christianity, but scholarship sometimes gets misused. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has to consider the NT as evidence. The Jesus myth supporters have not. That places them outside mainstream scholarship, of course, and makes it more difficult for the academy to take them too seriously, but that's certainly their call. KHM03 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's been pointed out that Freke and Gandy do examine 2nd John as evidence. I'd say that 2nd John is part of the New Testament. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The do use the NT and the OT as sources. The OT is used to show how the NT story had to be massaged to make it fulfil prophesy - particularly the nativity - the need to get from Nazarteh to Bethlehem - the fight to Egypt etc. Sophia^TalkTCF 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh...I find it hard to understand how that kind of stuff would lead one to the supposition that Jesus didn't exist. If someone was going to make up Jesus out of whole cloth, wouldn't it be more likely that they would make it more clearly close to the Old Testament stuff. For instance, why make him from Nazareth at all? Why not just say he was from Bethlehem? The most parsimonious explanation would be because people knew that the real Jesus was from Nazareth, and the authors of Matthew and Luke knew that they couldn't get away with ignoring that. Note also that the earliest of the Gospels doesn't contain anything about Jesus being from Bethlehem. I'm not going to say that this is the only explanation, I'm sure people can come up with other ones, but it is clearly the most obvious explanation, the one which mainstream scholars have accepted for generations, and it's hard to see how Freke and Gandy see this stuff as particularly good evidence for the contention that Jesus didn't exist. john k 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Er...I think you need do a bit more basic research. For one, the Old Testament doesn't mention mention "Nazareth" a single time; the Gospel author who fabricated that bit misread the scripture whose prophecy he was trying to "prove" Jesus fulfilled. Further, there's absolutely no record at all of Nazareth at all until a few hundred years later when it became a tourist trap on the brand-new pilgrimage route. Not one map, census, author, etc., mentions it. Even Josephus, who lived a few miles away for some years and who wrote of every mud village in the region, didn't mention it. TrumpetPower! 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Trumpet, once again proving you have no idea what you're talking about. Point 1: the whole "Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus" business is simply not true. Archaologists seem to accept that it existed, although it was quite a small place. Point 2: Nazareth had nothing to do with Old Testament prophecy. The Old Testament prophecy had to do with Bethlehem. Jesus obviously wasn't from Bethlehem, but rather from Galilee, so Matthew and Luke made up stories for how he could've been born in Bethlehem but grew up in Nazareteh. If the Gospels were just making up Jesus, why bring Nazareth into it at all, why not just say he grew up in Bethlehem? Why any association with Galilee? john k 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Mistranslation of Judges 13.5. The archaeological digs haven't found anything from the period other than a few tombs--no settlement, and people wouldn't have built a town upon a graveyard. Here's a chance for you to prove your vast superiority of historical scholarship: tell us all the earliest (non-Biblical) reference to the town. TrumpetPower! 19:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That "Nazareth" means "Nazerite" is just one theory. See Nazareth for the others. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, good ol' criteria of embarrasment. Freke and Gandy have been criticized for exactly the reasons you say. However, we are not here to impeach the Jesus-Myth theory but to explain what it is. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, this kind of stuff is the basic stuff that most scholars, as I understand it, use to determine what is actually true in the Gospels - when the Evangelists make statements that go against the grain of the story they're trying to tell. The Nazareth business is one thing. The fact that Jesus is crucified, even though the Evangelists generally go to some lengths to absolve Pilate and put the blame on the Jewish authorities, suggests that Jesus actually was crucified by the Romans. And so on. john k 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Some (not all) of the Jewish authorities had their reason for wanting Jesus dead. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 springs immediately to mind, although not all the Jewish authorities thought Jesus fit this description. (Jesus of Nazareth or Yeshu ben Pandera? But this is going beyond the New Testament). I wouldn't say that Evangelists really absolve Pilate: it's like he's saying "Not guilty but I crucify you anyway because I don't want to start the Great Jewish Revolt 40 years early." (not that Pilate could see the future, but you get that impression). We know at least one other time that Pilate gave in to the crowd, although I think this was about banners that had the emperor's face on them. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And your source for Pilate giving into any mob would be...? TrumpetPower! 18:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Josephus. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do please tell me you don't mean the Testamonium.... TrumpetPower! 18:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't. Read the book. And while you're at it, try reading Tacitus on Nero too and compare what he actually says to your comments on the "fiddling" story. Paul B 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Trumpet once again betrays that he has no idea what he's talking about. What a surprise. I am astonished that people would argue so vehemently on a subject they know absolutely nothing about. john k 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire argument works both ways and in the end if everyone just throws out evidence because of compleatly unrelated issues based on supposed fabrications of regions and Pilate stuff then pretty much nothing is probably going to get done. The Gospels are not on trial here, blasting bits of Bible prophecy prove absolutly nothing about whether Jesus was an historical figure in some form or another, so what are the sources for Jesus absolutly positively not existing at all? Homestarmy 18:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The page already includes a number of those who should have recorded Jesus but didn't. I've already included in talk pages--maybe this one, it's getting far too big--names of several second- (and first-?) century Christians who explicitly rejected the historicity of Jesus, and there're a number of Pagans who did the same, as well. Yes, I'll be coming up with proper citations, but I've got some other priorities right now. If you're sincerely interested and don't mind the obvious bias and downright god-awful site design and navigation, http://jesuneverexisted.com/ has as many citations and quotations as you could ever ask for. Yes, original sources. TrumpetPower! 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What obligation did people have to record Jesus's teachings in name, especially considering low literacy rates, painfully slow copying rates, and other annoying things which could of been gotten around by simply talking? Which, as I understand it, people did, quite a bit too.....but anyway, if they say he didn't exist and their already cited in the article, what is the big problem? Is the article drawing uncited conclusions or what? Homestarmy 18:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of rampant slavery, people weren't under much different obligations then than now, of course. You misrepresent the historical record of the period; please read the article to get the beginnings of an idea of just how well-documented it is. (Aside from the sources listed, there are dozens if not hundreds more that wouldn't have had anything to do with a minor Judean preacher--though, of course, virtually all of them would have recorded many of the events the Gospels claim as fact, such as an unprovoked mass infanticide or hordes of zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem.)

The article is, in fact, sorely lacking in citations of early Christians and Pagans who explicitly declared Jesus a fiction. I plan on remedying that, but I'm not sure when I'll have a chance....

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 18:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly take exception to any claim of knowledge on your part as to what ancient writers ought to have said. Please explain why there would be any expectation for any of this writers to have mentioned Jesus. Philo and Seneca the Elder died only shortly after the presumed time of Jesus, and it certainly seems unlikely that the latter would have even heard of Jesus. I'd also note that you seem to have confused Seneca the Elder with Seneca the Younger in your description. Seneca the Elder was a rhetorician. Seneca the Younger was the philosopher and playwright. Even so, there's no especial reason to believe either of them would have written about Christianity, that I can see. We don't really know what Justus could be expected to write about, since we don't have him intact. Plutarch wrote numerous essays, but nothing on Christianity. But this hardly proves your point - we know that there were Christians around in Plutarch's time, so Plutarch not mentioning Jesus no more indicates that Jesus might not exist than his failure to mention Christians means that they didn't. The "Others" section is especially problematic. The implication given is that no first or second century sources mention Jesus. But this is done simply by listing all the first and second century writers who don't mention Jesus or Christians. This gives a ridiculous unfair perception of things. This is especially true when you list second century authors. You don't believe that any of the various second century references to Jesus or Christians by classical authors (Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Galen, Celsus, Lucian) or Christian authors (Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, etc.) is worthwhile as evidence of Jesus. But when other second century authors (Marcus Aurelius, Apuleius, Arrian, Appian, Plutarch) are listed as notable for not mentioning Jesus or Christians. This is absurd. Either references to Jesus and Christians in the second century are evidence of some kind or they are not. If they are evidence, then you can't exclude Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny, et al. If they are not evidence, then you can't bring up various second century writers who don't mention Jesus as though this is suggestive of anything. john k 20:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Freke, Gandy and John

Let me take the bold step of trying to resolve the real issue under contention. I was under the impression that the thesis of The Jesus Mysteries is that Christianity emerged from Gnosticism. We know that some Gnostics were docetists. Gandy has a master's degree in ancient pagan mystery religions, so I would expect him to know that. I would expect Gandy to agree that 2nd John was warning about docetists; I would expect him to show that some early Christians were docetists even as the New Testament was being written, and point out the parallels with Gnosticism. Finally, I would expect Gandy to state that, if his thesis is correct, than Christianity is just as much myth as Gnosticism was.

However, I have not read the book, so it is entirely possible that Gandy does not live up to my expectations ;) If I am wrong, than I know that someone will correct me. I just think that we should make clear what Freke and Gandy are actually saying before we impeach their credentials.

Finally, several of the book reviews that I have read refer to Freke and Gandy as being "on the cutting edge of modern scholarship." That may be hyperbole, but I am wary of saying that Gandy, at least, is not a scholar. However, I'll let other people sort that out. They are most definitely authors making a case for the "Jesus-Myth," which, after all, is what this article is about. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right Archie but they go about it in a slightly different way. They explore the older mystery religions showing showing the similarities to the Jesus "story" then they propose that the "Jesus Myth" was just an updated version of this. Each mystery religion had different levels - they propose the literal Jesus story with him as a real person, living, dying and resurrecting were the "outer mysteries" for the uninitiated - the "populist" view if you like. Then there were the "inner mysteries" which revealed that this was all allegorical and the true search was for the "Christ within" or Gnosis - your old self needed to die so you could be reborn to a higher spiritual level. Basically they claim the outer mysteries were adopted by the Roman authorities as it was a great religion for controlling people and teaching them to accept their subjugated state in this life as salvation and paradise were promised in the next. The inner mystery initiates were harder to control so they were condemed as heretics and done away with.

(Butting in here--it's funny and off-topic, but this outer-and-innter mystery, perhaps not surprisingly, is the same basic pattern followed by modern Greek fraternities. TrumpetPower! 00:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

I'm just starting on the Elaine Pagels book but she seems to take it one step further and state that a literal interpretation of the Jesus story was necessary to secure apostolic importance as these people could claim a personal experience of Christ that was unavailible to later converts thus cementing their control and the roots of a power structure.

John M. Allegro has also stated that the social and political context at that time made the Jewish people increasing desperate for a Messiah as this was the lead up to the great revolt in 70AD. This ties in very well with the dates the earliest Gospels were written - either just before or in the years after the great revolt which was a turning point for Jewish history.

The point has also been made (I'll have to check which book and report back) that the role of Paul was to open up these mysteries to the gentiles - particularly the Greeks who seemed to like the religion -remember the earliest texts are written in Greek. Sophia^TalkTCF 00:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

To pick up on TrumpetPowers comment above - F&G do talk about the pythagoreans with this inner/outer mystery concepts - there may have been others I need to reread the book. Interestingly they portray Justin Martyr as a failed Pythagorean as he didn't want to have to learn the maths they felt was required to be admitted to Gnosis - he preferred the quick and easy option of Christianity! Sophia^TalkTCF 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the above sounds to me as if they take a mythological rather than a historical approach to the concept/existence of Jesus. Rather what you would expect: experts in mythology taking a mythological approach, and experts in history taking a historical approach. Two different schools of thought examining the evidence and coming to different conclusions. Rather like what Paul B told me a while back, and what in fact Paul B has said on this page recently. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think they would all argue they are trying to root the myth in the historical context. Sophia^TalkTCF 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but that's a little different than attempting a forensic reconstruction from all the documents we have and the data from Israeli Archaelogy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would one expect that experts in mythology would take a mythological approach, and experts in history a historical approach? Experts on history do not, I would guess, mostly approach Hercules from a historical standpoint, because he's a mythological figure. And I would suspect that experts on mythology do not approach Napoleon from a mythological viewpoint... john k 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that there's much of a historical nature to investigate with regard to Hercules--especially, what people thought about him--and there's a fair amount of myth that's grown up around Napoleon. Any "expert" in ancient Greco-Roman history who isn't well versed on the subject of Hercules is no expert, and any student of mythology who hasn't at least given passing thought to Napoleonic myths isn't worthy of serious regard, either. TrumpetPower! 01:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so my oversimplification failed. I'll get a little more complicated and say that one side starts by comparing the Gospels et al to other contemporaneous belief systems (read:myths) while also taking into account the historical context of these myths. The other side starts by comparing the Gospels et al to the sociopolitical and cultural (read:historic) context of first-century Roman-occupied Iudea, Perea and Gallilee while also taking into account that these documents are flavored by the religious beliefs of their authors.

Is that enough equivocation to make it accurate? It's so much easier to say "mythological approach" and "historical approach" than it is to construct a paragraph like the one above. Also, AFAIK Napoleon did not found a religion. As for Hercules, I've heard people say that he was a pirate if he existed at all. That may not be scholarship, but the idea is out there.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

PS and Re: Trumpet Power's edit summary:"one can certainly focus more on the one than the other." Yep, that's pretty much what I meant. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Article re-working

I've taken the liberty of re-working the article, including incorporation of relevant material from the Historicity of Jesus article that really belongs here instead of there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TrumpetPower%21/Jesus_as_Mythical_Creation&oldid=44993829

If and when this article is unprotected, I'd like to see my version be used as the starting point. I've attempted to remove what I've perceived as a fair amount of bias from both sides as well as organize it into a more logical form.

Comments welcome...but I've got other things I need to catch up on, so please don't be offended if I don't respond promptly (or at all).

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In the intro, it seems to me like you need to define what "not near-contemporary" means, such as not at least 20 years after Jesus's death, 30 years, 40 years, whatever. I saw a couple instances of some POVish looking word choices but I cant say that makes it a horrible article overall from it, but I do see what you and some others were meaning by needing sources..... Homestarmy 23:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated intro; thanks. POV tuning probably needs to wait for it to go live. TrumpetPower! 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody objected, so I got bold. See Jesus as Mythical Creation.TrumpetPower! 16:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don;t see the point of the title change - the phrase "jesus" myth is a knoen phrase - this seems a rather pointless change to me. Sorry. Robsteadman 20:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If that article gets AfDed, the next step should be either a name change vote or you replacing the current article with yours. Homestarmy 20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions in the Gospels

That there are contradictions and miraculous events, which were not recorded by any contempary writers, in the Gospels is hardly a disputed fact -- I don't see the need for the exhaustive lists. Once the article is unlocked I'm planning to delete the bulk of both these sections. If anybody has any objections to this, please say so. Starless and bible black 23:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Before you delete them can we check that they exist somewhere as most of them are valid points. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are contradictions in the Gospels used by "Jesus myth" supporters to prove that Jesus never existed? KHM03 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if there were contradictions it has absolutly nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed in some manner. Homestarmy 02:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The contradictions suffice to show that the gospels are not reliable. Alienus 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are contradictions in perhaps thousands of works over the centuries, does that make them all unreliable? Besides, there is a dispute over contradictions, regardless of whether one side does or does not recognize the other's existance, an enormous part of apologetics consists of debunking contradiction claims. Homestarmy 02:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In a word, yes. However, it's even worse for the gospels. Their problem is four-fold. First, they're not independent. It is clear that the writers of some had access to others, or to common documents. On this basis, we would expect the stories to be highly consistent, since the authors had the ability to cross-check. Second, they're inconsistent despite this. Third, they contain claims of highly improbable events, including miracles and godhood, and these claims tend to get more fabulous with the later works, showing the growth of a tall tale. Fourth and finally, their authorship is unknown, and their origin and time of creation is sketchy at best. On the whole, this makes their historical value very, very low. Alienus 03:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that, regardless of apologetics, it is fair to say that there are considerable contradictions among the gospels, both between the individual synoptic gospels and between the synoptics and John. It would seem that this is an argument that supporters of the "Jesus Myth" (or whatever one wants to call it) have used to argue their point. That said, this article is not about us arguing in favor of this idea, and we need to be careful that we are not ourselves making original arguments. The point is not that Alienus thinks that the Gospels are unreliable. The point is to describe the kinds of arguments that published authors who have written on the subject have said. I'd add that we should also point out the fact that the view that contradictions among the Gospels make them worthless as evidence for the mere existence of Jesus is far from mainstream, and that most secular scholars, while accepting considerable inconsistencies within the gospels, still believe that one can use the Gospels to find out useful information about the life of Jesus (although how much useful information can be discerned is obviously in dispute). And I think some of the arguments are especially dubious. Given that the vast majority of non-fundamentalist scholars are perfectly willing to accept that Matthew and Luke's nativity narratives are entirely fictional, it is ridiculous to use contradictions between the nativity stories as evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. Of course, when the article is about an entire line of inquiry which is largely based around taking cheap-shots, I suppose some of this is inevitable. john k 03:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions (even among the synoptics) and other related issues, such as their origin, originality and authorship make them unreliable as sources. There is much debate about how much we can say on a historical basis, with some arguing for a historical Jesus and a few arguing against, but it's not as if the former have an overwhelming case. If anything, what seems to drive them are non-secular motivations and pure inertia. As you said, this article is not about my summary of how things are, but about what can be written within the guidelines of acceptable content. The discussion here has the goal of offering some insight so that we have a common basis upon which to come to a consensus. Alienus 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue any further about the Gospels - as we both agree, this is beside the point. What this article really needs is close attention to the actual arguments made by specific advocates of the "Jesus Myth" idea. General discussion of the issue of whether Jesus really existed historically belongs in Historicity of Jesus. Insofar as this article deserves to exist at all, it should exist to present the specific arguments of the "Jesus Myth" school of thought, especially as presented by notable published works. I'd suggest that what we should really do is turn the article into, essentially, a history of the theory, describing its major advocates and their variations on it. Notably, I'd suggest Bauer, Wells, and Doherty as the principal figures, but others could be discussed as well. This would both clearly illuminate this article's separate purpose from that of Historicity of Jesus and also make it much easier to keep the thing NPOV and to prevent original research from creeping in. What do people think? john k 08:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In the same way the "jesus" article should only discuss "jesus" and the verifiable evidence about him not all the "christian" propaganda that it current;y also includes and the unverifiable, unhistorical and inaccurate? Robsteadman 09:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a complete non sequitur. As I've said before on the Jesus page, regardless of the truth value of the Gospels, the version of Jesus's life contained therein is, by far, the most important thing we should have in our Jesus article, because Jesus's position in Christianity is by far the most important thing about Jesus. john k 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember that most scholars believe that the Gospels are at least partially reliable, that do contain facts, even if much of the facts are surrounded by the Gospel writers' theological POVs. My question earlier was simply to ask if Gospel contradictions are used by "Jesus myth" writers as evidence that Jesus didn't exist. If so, by whom? What books or articles? Let's cite these folks and their works, something like...

In "Jesus Never Lived" (2001) by John Whomever, the author claims that the (whatever, whatever) contradictions in Matthew and John (or whatever) is evidence that Jesus never existed."

Listing a bunch of contradictions doesn't really work, unless we tie them to what the "Jesus myth" writers have argued. KHM03 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's about what im thinking, if jesus myth people use "contradictions" as "evidence", just cite them and the author's opinion, and then we're done. Trying to make up the opinion is a bad idea, because then it might turn into a linkspam fight, I know a pretty big base of apologetics cites to pull material from :D. Homestarmy 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus myth people do use contradictions in the Gospels as part of their arguments, but it's a far, far less significant feature of their literature than the claims that there are specific connections to Jewish and Pagan mystery traditions, or that Christianity is based on ancient fertility rites that underlie all relgions. And as John and others have said, Gospel contradictions can be also used to support historicity, by drawing attention to apparent conflicts between the reality and the myth-making. What this article should be about is the history and arguments used by the mythicist school. It should look at the origins of the idea in Frazer, Muller and others, explore early mythicist texts, such as Aryan Sun Myths:The Origin of Religions, and go on to look at the classic model of the argument as articulated by Drews. It should mention later mythicist writers, such as John G. Jackson in the 40s (who is partly motivated by Afrocentrism), and then look at Doherty, Freke/Gandy and other modern authors. It should also mention some of the more loopy proponents such as Acharya S and the theorists of the idea that Jesus was really Julius Caesar or Titus. We should also dosvcuss scholarly responses to these ideas and rebuttals of them, with an account of modern consensus views. Paul B 14:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right. john k 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me; maybe Robsteadman or Alienus or one of the editors who have defended these inclusions could weigh in. KHM03 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with Paul. The thrust of the Jesus Myth is not merely that there was no historical Jesus, but that the character is an adaptation from existing myths. This includes all sorts of things, from fairly scholarly work aimed at the general public (Doherty), to the lunatic fringe (Acharya), to all the various people who've pointed out similarities between the Jesus stories and pre-existing myths (usually Mithra, Osirus, and Hercules) without ever formulating any sort of complete theory to account for it.

So, while Jesus' lack of historicity is key to myth advocacy, it should be limited here to a summary that links to the full article. Alienus 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What we need to do, then, is present the Gospel contradictions used by the writers, rather than just list a bunch of them for the heck of it. Any volunteers? KHM03 (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the real problem is that the article needs to be completely reworked and reorganized. We certainly don't need pages and pages listing classical writers who don't mention Jesus. john k 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless that's an important part of what the "Jesus myth" folks use to "prove" that Jesus never existed (it seems pretty flimsy, but, that's not the point). Is this an important part of what the writers argue? KHM03 (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not used to "prove" that he didn't exist -- but it is the lack of extra-biblical historical sources about Jesus that allows the theory to be concieved of in the first place. Starless and bible black 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Mysteries makes references to a lot of writers who were contemporary/near contemporary to Jesus and cites their lack of mention of him to under pin the myth theory - christianity exists so if a man didn't start it did a myth? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My edit

I'm sorry, I didn't notice the page protection until it was too late. I've only sorted the external links, which I do not beleive impacts the current dispute. Please contact me if this is a problem. -- Scott e^iπ 13:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)