Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

"Further reading" section

A little while back I removed the "further reading" section of this article. My thinking was that since the article already cites a huge number of high-quality sources--all of which appear in the references section--a further reading section was unnecceary. Recently another editor put the further reading section back in, though. I'm inclined to cut it again for my original reasons. What does everyone else think?

Further, if certain editors are inclined to retain such a section, what do you think about the books and articles that currently appear there? Some of them are far too outdated to be of any more than historical interest and others are clearly qutite marginal. Eugene (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a point to the section, but I willing to go with what everyone else says. That is, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody? Eugene (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship

No opinion on whether that's the best word to use, but after I read the lead, it made me search the article for the next instance and a more detailed explanation. It's a bit funky that the word does not appear a second time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is still a work in progress. One of the editors here has compiled a long list of quotes (see FAQ #2) from various scholars that indicate how crazy the CMT is. Check it out when you have time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We're still discussing its appropriateness. Anthony (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which. Above, E4mmacro says it seems wrong to use McClymond's term "psedoscholarship" as the term used by most scholars, when even McClymond does not say most scholars use that term. Can anyone give an argument in defence of leaving it in? Anthony (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, it's true that the specifc word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear again in the body of the article but the "methodological concerns" section covers this element and does use words like "denialism" and "fringe theories" and include Wright's quote comparing the thesis to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese. That should satisfy.

Anthony, here's my argument for retaining the word "pseudoscholarship" in the lead: It is used explicitly by a couple authors--including McClymond himself in connection with his "most scholars" comment--and it serves as a sufficiently broad term to incorporate the statements made by other scholars. For example...

• Robert Price: "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"
• Earl Doherty: Mainstream scholarship's interaction with the CMT is "limited to expressions of contempt."
• Herbert George Wood: "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism"
• Shirley Jackson Case: the CMT exhibits a "disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration"
• Christopher M. Tucket: the CMT is "farfetched"
• N. T. Wright: CMT is equivalent to the belief that "the moon was made of green cheese"
• F. C. Conybeare: CMT advocates are even more fringy than "Bacon-Shakespeareans"
• Leander Keck: "Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed."
• Brian A. Gerish: CMT "evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment" since "In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin."
• John Drane: "We do not need to take seriously" the CMT advocates
• Rudolf Bultmann: the CMT is "unfounded and not worth refutation" and can be entertained by "No sane person"
• James Frazer: CMT equivalent to doubting the existence of "Alexander the Great and Charlemagne"
• Robert Miller: CMT advocates simply "refuse to be convinced"
• Will Durant: CMT, if true, "would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel"
• Bart Ehrman: "I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing." And, if one is willing to just dismiss the evidence surrounding Jesus, "why not just deny the Holocaust?"
• William Lane Craig: CMT "is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship."
• James Dunn: CMT is "Sad"
• Albert Schweitzer: CMT is "even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis."
• Paul L. Maier: "the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation."
• Nicholas Perrin: "The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust."
• Michael McClymond: "Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.
• Michael R. Licona: "There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe."
• John Dominic Crossan: "I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying."
• Mark Allan Powell: Anyone who advocates the CMT "in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."
• Emil Brunner: "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."
• Edwyn Bevan: CMT "has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare." Also the CMT "can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing."
• John W. C. Wand: "Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed."
• Morton Smith: CMT has been "thoroughly discredited" is "absurd" and it's advocates are "cranks".
• James F. McGrath: "One category of mythicists [are] like young-earth creationists" while "Other mythicists ... resemble proponents of Intelligent Design" but "I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism."
• Carston Thiede: "In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime."
• John Dickson: "To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method."

Of course, if you really want to stick very closely to McClymond's own wording and thus exchange the current sentence that rounds out the lead with the following, I won't try to stop you:

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio."

But somehow I think that the status quo is less controversial. Eugene (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The mind boggles at the effort thrown at this article in the attempt to give the CMT an appearance of credibility. Why are people still discussing this? The serious discussion was over a century ago. It has been revived by cranks in "recent years". Big deal. This doesn't justify us juxtaposing serious 19th century scholarship with recent pulp pseudo-scholarship in a giant article. My impression remainst that the only reason this article is so long and detailed is the attempt to disguise from the casual reader the fact that the entire thing can be shrugged off in a one-liner. I seriously think the effort vaporized on this could be put to much better use in serious articles on biblical scholarship. Currently, it seems it is Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) who is fruitlessly perpetuating this non-issue. It is the oldest trick in the book to just keep splitting hairs until everybody else gives up in exasperation, or failing that, until any information that is helpful and to the point is buried under heaps of useless detail. "Is it pseudoscholarshi"? Zomg, we need to discuss this in depth for the next five months or so. Never mind that it is already fully established that this page is about a "theory" that no biblical scholar would touch with a ten foot pole, but is it "pseudo" and is it "scholarship", and should we connect the words with a hyphen? In my experience it is a mistake to even acknowledge this approach as a valid item of discussion. --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dab said:

My impression remainst that the only reason this article is so long and detailed is the attempt to disguise from the casual reader the fact that the entire thing can be shrugged off in a one-liner.

Yes, that's probably true, but what is the alternative? Many of us have been battling to make the CMT clear, but every time a statement is made on how crazy the theory is, the other side asks for a proof/citation. And since that has happened almost every week for the last six months (and probably longer), the article has grown in size. I'm not sure how we can overcome this problem, but I'm open to suggestions. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All most people have asked for, is that points being made be backed up with specifics not sneering comments. How is that trying to increase its credibility? Detailed criticism, not just opinions, should do the complete opposite. Sophia ♫ 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know me Dab? Anthony (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't rise to the bait. They are often rude and dismissive and you just need to ignore it and focus on the issues. Sophia ♫ 21:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I like your proposed new revision, Eugene, but the last part is a bit Fox News. Would you settle for

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard the theory with contempt, and as unworthy of any response."

The overwhelming impression your list leaves on me is one of disdain, which I think this phrasing conveys quite well; and we can use "the theory" because their contempt is obviously directed at both proposition and arguments (whereas pseudo-scholarship can only apply to the arguments). Anthony (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ehhh... it strikes me as a bit unencyclopedic and as something that would raised a whole new batch of objections related to POV. Eugene (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it sums up the response of academe pretty accurately, at least as presented in your list, without crossing into "the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio" which will never survive in the lead (or the body of the article, for that matter). Anthony (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have much of a problem with Anthony's phrasing if and only if we can get a consensus that it must be linked (in the footnotes and/or in a FAQ) to ALL of the quotes listed by Eugene above as well as on his user page here and here. What do all of you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it. Anthony (☺) 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthony's wording accurately conveys the opinions of most scholars, but I think Eugene is correct that it will raise a lot of POV-related objections. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If we follow Bill's suggestion and link to an impressive list of quotes, that should obviate any confusion between the article's POV and the judgment of mainstream scholarship. Though, to achieve that end, the list should avoid incendiary terms like holocaust denial, and comprise quotes from recent authoritative publications. Anthony (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate Bill's creativity, I don't think linking from the article to an FAQ is a workable solution. The FAC reviewers would object to the anomalous formatting. Better to just stick with the status quo. Eugene (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a link to the FAQ. An intelligent selection of quotes in a footnote would work. Anthony (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think "pseudoscholarship" is better: it's more encyclopedic, it's less likely to provoke POV concerns, it's less open to charges of OR and SYN, it's wikilinked, and the wikilink's target article now has a decent definition of the word connected to three university published sources. Eugene (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the worth of your definition is still not clear. See: Talk:Pseudo-scholarship Anthony (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FA would probably allow a few quotes in a supporting ref, but not a giant paragraph of 20 quotes. I think. I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting a link to ALL of the quotes. Since that doesn't appear to be feasible, then never mind. Let's stay with "pseudo-scholarship". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Bultmann's "not worthy of refutation" paired with Price's "disdain" or Doherty's "contempt". It addresses the theory, not the learning of the authors; it reflects the case that no serious scholar wastes their time in detailed refutation of modern proponents; and is endorsed by two of the most prominent contemporary advocates. A link to quotes from Bultmann, Doherty and Price would satisfy any reader. Anthony (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bultmann makes no reference to how "most" scholars feel--he only gives his own take; Doherty's website is manfestly not a reliable source; and Price's book is very iffy on that count too. It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny; pass. Eugene (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD Pseudoscholarship

This discussion may interest you Anthony (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture

A while back the article included a section on popular culture that read thusly:

Finally, the Christ myth theory has entered popular culture through a variety of avenues. Films such as the conspiratorial Zeitgeist, the polemical The God Who Wasn't There, and the satirical Religulous discuss the theory at some length. Also, like Russell before him, "New Atheism" advocate Richard Dawkins has made passing reference to the theory in his book The God Delusion. Slogans such as "Jesus never existed" have become something of a meme, appearing in graffiti and on merchandise of various sorts.

This section was deleted because an editor thought that some of it was biased (calling The God Delusion pop-culture) and some was unencyclopedic/OR (the merch and graffiti). I conceed that the merch and graffiti were a mistake, but I still think that much of this section is worthwhile and should be included somewhere, either in it's own section or perhaps as a part of the "popular opinion" section. Any thoughts? Eugene (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that such a section is important to include in the article. There are so many people that consider the CMT as a valid theory that such a section is necessary to disabuse them of their preconceived notions. Please add it back in and expand on it if possible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree there is enough notability to warrant a pop culture section we must be careful here as the pop culture definition of Christ Myth theory is a little broader than the Jesus never existed one this article uses.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheism Section

I've got three works by the "new atheists" that refer to the CMT. Rodney Stark (former President of the ASR) has written "today only dedicated atheist writers cling to the notion that Jesus never existed". Van Voorst has written that the CMT is pushed not for objective scholarly reasons but for "anti-religious" purposes. The survey data indicates that atheists are far more likely to embrace the CMT than the average person. Should we perhaps have a section on the CMT and atheism? We could put it alongside the "Ironic Christian apologetical uses", perhaps under a shared heading:

Ideological uses

Atheist polemics

Ironic Christian apologetics

What's everyone's take on this? Eugene (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before the two don't go together. There are atheists who believe Jesus existed and Deists that believe he didn't; never mind Tom Harpur who was an ordained priest in the Anglican Church of Canada as well as a Professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe and he is one of the Christ Myth supporters.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I do think something along those lines would be interesting. This blog has some good comments and suggests Michel Onfray deserves a mention is such a section. However, if you go for motives, I think that for balance you ought to also state the motivation of proponents like Price and Harpur. I think Price said it well in the five views on Jesus book: the non-existence of Jesus does not diminish his belief in Christ at all; on the contrary, since the Christ of Faith is all there is, Price is now completely free to believe in whatever liberal conception of Jesus he wants. Uhm, the end slightly deviated from what Price explicitly said, but I'm sure you'll find it in the book and can summarize it more adequately than I did. Vesal (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a good section to have, actually. Even though there are many atheists who agree that Jesus existed but dispute his miracles, the CMT has been used most recently in the context of atheistic arguments. It's pretty obvious that the biggest atheist movements today use it to advance their theories. How about you draw up a rough draft and we can look it over? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The text that's just been put up really doesn't work. Prominent atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins have nothing in common with mystical writers like Freke and Gandy. It has to be made clear that these atheists don't propose a theory of their own but place the burden of proof upon Christians to show that Jesus was a historical figure. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it works very nicely. Also, the text doesn't say that Hitchens and Dawkins are proposing their own theories - rather they "have likewise made passing reference to the hypothesis" (italics added). Finally, this article isn't a Christian vs. Atheist proposition. It's about what virtually all scholars consider to be a bogus theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you posit it as a theory. These atheists are precisely not proposing it as a theory. They are turning the tables and challenging others to come up with evidence that Jesus did exist. I'm going to take this back to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to try and get more views. You'll see in the board archives that I argued that the consensus of theologians is that CMT is fringe. But this is a different issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Stenger cites Doherty and Dawkins cites Wells, the difference is not so large as you imagine. Eugene (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:FTN for more views. I think some people are using this page to present original research in the history of ideas. Quite good research if it wasn't being done on Wikipedia, bringing together the earlier writers with the most recent ones. But making an original synthesis to promote a position is against policy. Atheism is not a fringe theory and we shouldn't imply that it is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said, or implied, that atheism is a fringe theory. Even atheist scholars severely criticize atheists who refuse to look at the evidence for the mere existence of JoN. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

CMT or History of CMT

I wanted to refresh myself on the CMT, so I looked at Christ_myth_theory#Arguments, and it's really short. This article seems to be more about the history of the theory, and who supported it or didn't over the years. It looks like the "Scarcity and unreliability of extra-biblical sources" section has some important points to make, but you have to click through to several other articles to actually find out what's going on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peregrine Fisher, I agree with you. I notice that you have written a number of articles designated "good". I would be interested in hearing your opinion, as well as others', on the idea of splitting an article out from this one that would be titled "History of the Christ Myth Theory" and keep the CMT article more tightly focused on the facts and evidence that are used for and against the theory itself. This article is now of such a large size that a warning is displayed when it is edited, so perhaps something should be done to rein in this beast. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, size isn't that big of a problem. A lot featured articles, which are supposed to be our best, are huge. But, an article should match its title, and right now this one doesn't really explain the theory, or when it does, it's haphazardly placed throughout the sections. I don't think people want to make two articles about it, but if they did, it could easily be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Marx

A bit of info that seems to be missing from the "Soviet adoption" stuff is that Marx was a student of Bruno Bauer. One or two sources think that Bauer's ideas about Jesus became Soviet dogma through the line of influence Bauer --> Marx --> Soviet Union. That seems a bit simplistic to me, but if we're going to have the Soviet stuff in the article, we'd better mention Marx, and perhaps draw more attention to Engels' piece "Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did take it out because I didn't see we had enough ground to make the simplistic and, really, misleading Bauer to Marx to Soviet Union link. Marx was, after all, scathingly hostile about Bauer. It's well known that the Russians got much of their Marxism from Engels' works, but we can't draw directly from Engels essay as it is a primary source. One of the sources you just recommended has a reference to a book devoted to Marx and Bauer, so it may be possible to look that up. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to opening paragraphs

I have made a few changes to the first paragraphs of this article to provide more detail to the central arguments that underlie the Christ myth theory, as well as to try to make it more NPOV.

I notice that User:Bill the Cat 7 removed my changes with the comment "He misunderstands what the CMT is and also seems to be pushing a POV." The goal of my changes is to make the article more consistent with the theory, and to make the article more neutral and NPOV.

Since User:Bill the Cat 7 offered no additional details for why these changes should be removed, I am reinstating them for now, with the following justification provided below. I understand that some may be attached to the previous version, but think it would be better for the integrity of the article if you do not revert the changes without providing a detailed justification that can be evaluated by the community.

I believe that I have added a number of facts which are generally undisputed by both proponents and opponents of the CMT. These facts are important for the reader to know about from the outset. Here are the changes and the reasons for them:

1) Added the word "legendary" with a link to the "Legend" wikipedia article. This is justified by the use of this term by proponents of CMT as described in this article. The next sentence, both original and as I revised it, support the use of the word "legend" to describe the position of some CMT proponents.

2) Changed "Additionally, some proponents of the theory allow that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity."

to

"Some proponents of the theory posit that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. "

The use of the term "allow" has an implied POV, as it presents the argument in relation to the opposing POV, as if they are conceding a point in a debate, whereas the word "posit" is neutral without reference to an opposing POV.

3) Changed "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods."

to

"They give priority to the earlier Christian writings, the epistles, over the later texts, the "gospels", in determining the views of the earliest Christians and note many parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods. Some suggest that Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."

The rationale for this change is to help the reader understand the relative time frame in which the epistles and the gospels were written. The epistles are earlier than the gospels, and this helps explain why someone would put more emphasis on them in understanding the views of the earliest Christians. I believe that the word "perceived" could be seen as a pejorative adjective that is being used to push the oppositional POV and should not be included. The parallels between the biography of Jesus and others are factual, well-documented and not in dispute (e.g. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, miraculous cures), though their relevance and the explanation for the parallels certainly is contested. Not all proponents of the theory agree that "Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism", so I changed the wording to reflect this fact.

3) Changed "absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century." to

"the absence of any contemporaneous historical reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the few non-Christian references to the Jesus figure in the first century C. E."

The original version of this sentence is incomplete in its summary of the arguments and evidence for the theory. The issue is not just that there are no extant references to Jesus, but that there is no contemporaneous historical evidence whatsoever. This is a fact, undisputed by both sides of the argument, and it should be included at the outset. It is also an undisputed fact that the authenticity of the non-Christian documents allegedly referencing Jesus is uncertain. The unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the Josephus quote is a good example of the factual basis of the second part of the revised statement. The original weak description is advantageous to the oppositional POV and does not provide all of the facts.

4) Changed

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship."

to

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it has little support among biblical scholars. While Christian scholars have sometimes accused proponents of the theory of pseudo-scholarship, most Bible scholars allow that the documentation of the life of Jesus is quite weak."

a) I removed the reference to "classical historians" because all of the sources referenced are bible scholars (i.e. professors with degrees in theology or bible studies from theological institutions), not classical historians (i.e. professors with degrees in classical history from secular institutions). Unless there is evidence that there are no classical historians who support at least some version of the CMT, the original assertion is not factually correct and is misleading.

b) The accusations of pseudo-scholarship can, and do, come from both sides of the issue. Documentation of ad hominem attacks is not particularly helpful to the reader, but it should at least be balanced with a counterargument. I have provided a counter-balancing statement with a reference to a leading proponent of the theory, Dan Barker.

c) The goal here is to make this sentence more balanced in POV, rather than to emphasize just the POV of those who oppose CMT.

d) It is more accurate to say the theory has "little support" among bible scholars. To say it is "essentially without support", overstates the case, as obviously the theory itself is one that has historically been presented and defended by some bible scholars.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Context and Definition section, I made some similar changes to reflect the facts and provide more context and to make it more NPOV.

• Changed "Modern scholarship generally believes that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." to "The majority of Christian Bible scholars believe that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." The term "modern scholarship" is overly general as a noun in this case, and is really an unprovable assertion, as "modern scholarship" cannot be said to be 100% in agreement with the oppositional POV. "The majority of Christian Bible scholars" more accurately describes the group of people who represent the oppositional POV.

"Modern scholarship generally believes" is accurate; "Christian Bible scholars" seems to say that all bible scholars are Christians. Perhaps you just meant "the majority of New Testament scholars"? But that wouldn't capture the full range of scholars who have written about Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Changed "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself are known. Further, no account of Jesus' actions and teachings were produced during his lifetime." to "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself or any of his contemporaries, Christian or non-Christian, have ever been found. Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from that time period." This more accurately reflects the undisputed facts that are the basis of the CMT. The previous version is a weaker version that supports the oppositional POV by omission of important facts. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard claim would be that the letters of Paul and the Gospels are "extant historical documents from that time period" that record Jesus' existence. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "that time period"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "that time period" is intended to refer to "his lifetime". All scholars agree that the letters of Paul and the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. How about changing this to: "Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from the period of time that the New Testament says he lived." Does that make it clearer? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Changed "The Christ myth theory, however, stands entirely outside this continuum. It argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, simply never existed at all." to "In contrast, the Christ myth theory argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, either never existed at all, or is a legendary figure whose actual existence simply cannot be proven." This more accurately reflects the range of opinion that exists within the CMT camp. This range of opinion is well-documented within the article and is also stated from the outset in both the original and my revised version of the second sentence of the article.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, PeaceLoveHarmony, but I find that your edits are not improvements to the article. Some of the things you say above are simply factually incorrect (such as the claim that bible scholars are not from "secular" institutions), others result in a dramatic understatement of the scholarly disdain for the CMT at present, and others dilute the definition of the CMT itself. As an example of the last problem, your insertion of "legendary" into the beginning sentence. The CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. But inserting "legendary" would mean that the CMT includes people who think that the Gospels are a theological elaboration of the life of a real, historical person—i.e. a vast number of mainstream scholars writing about the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Akhilleus, I appreciate it. Please note that I did not state that bible scholars are not from "secular" institutions. I stated that the specific scholars who were referenced were all bible scholars with degrees from religious institutions, not classical historians. Please re-read my argument above, which was making a distinction between bible scholars and classical historians. Your response misrepresents what I said. I understand that bible-believing faith-based scholars of religious institutions would have disdain for a theory that undercuts the very basis of their belief system. This is not a surprise, is it? However, it is disingenuous to create a criteria for "mainstream scholarship" that only includes this group, when there are plenty of reliable sources, using Wikipedia's guidelines, that in fact advocate strongly for the CMT. These views should be included if this article is going to maintain NPOV.

This article presents two very prominent advocates of CMT using the word "legend" to describe the Jesus myth. For one, the title of one of Wells' books is "The Jesus Legend" The second example is this: "In a forward to The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Mark Hall writes that Allegro suggested the scrolls all but proved that a historical Jesus never existed. "According to Allegro," he wrote, "the Jesus of the gospels is a fictional character in a religious legend, which like many similar tales in circulation at the turn of the era, was merely an amalgamation of Messianic eschatology and garbled historical events".

The idea that the Jesus stories are loosely based on more than one itinerant messianic teachers and that the stories themselves may or may not be based on fact is consistent with the view of some CMT proponents and is in harmony with the use of the word Legend. Wikipedia currently defines Legend thusly: "A legend (Latin, legenda, "things to be read") is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Legend, for its active and passive participants includes no happenings that are outside the realm of "possibility", defined by a highly flexible set of parameters, which may include miracles that are perceived as actually having happened, within the specific tradition of indoctrination where the legend arises, and within which it may be transformed over time, in order to keep it fresh and vital, and realistic." Note that this definition deals with perception of historicity, not the facts of historicity. Let me put it another way. Suppose that the Jesus story is based on folklore that emerged regarding five different itinerant messianic teachers of the first century and which was eventually consolidated into a single narrative describing a single person. This is the viewpoint of a number of CMT proponents, as is well-documented in this article, and certainly fits the definition of "legend".

I am restoring the changes that I made, because you have not effectively rebutted the individual arguments I have painstakingly made for each change, and instead have made a few unsubstantiated blanket statements rejecting them all, without even addressing most of my points.

For example you did not provide any refutation of the additional facts which I added with regard to the lack of contemporaneous historical record of Jesus' existence. These facts are not disputed by opponents of CMT, and it only enhances the article to include these facts.

Please provide the community with a more detailed justification for your position, and if you wish to change what I have added, please make specific changes, not a wholesale revert of everything without providing justification.

Thanks! PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, the issues you are concerned about have been discussed before. So, before you make any changes, I strongly suggest that you go through the archives to familiarize yourself with the issues. If you don't want to go through the archives, then please discuss any changes you wish to make before implementing them. Any changes made without a full discussion will be reverted. Thank you for your understanding. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Bill in asking PeaceLoveHarmony to read the talk page archives. I know there are a lot of them, but since there's a lot of repetition, you can get the main points fairly quickly. Most of what PeaceLoveHarmony is saying above has been covered before (often multiple times) in previous discussions. E.g. your point that the sources used are "bible-believing faith-based scholars of religious institutions" has come up again and again, and the basic response is 1) not all of the sources are bible scholars (footnote #2 currently cites G.A. Wells, who was once an advocate of the CMT); 2) not all bible scholars get their degrees from, or work at, religious institutions; 3) some of the sources cited, even ones that have gotten degrees from theological seminaries, don't consider themselves Christians (Bart Ehrman for example); 4) the sources should be selected on the basis of expertise and authority, and people like Graham Stanton and James Charlesworth are eminent scholars who are in good positions to assess the consensus of scholarship. And really, your implied argument, that Christians are incapable of thinking rationally about the history of early Christianity, is biased and offensive.

I agree, though, that the lead doesn't currently cite a classical historian, so a citation to Michael Grant should be restored at the end of the lead.

On "legend": please don't rely on Wikipedia entries or book titles for the meaning of this word. There's a lot of work in the academic fields of anthropology, folklore, etc. which uses "legend" to denote traditional narratives that have a kernel of historicity—not just historical truth in the eyes of the teller and audience, but actual historicity. Jacob Grimm's original definition of legend stated that it was either connected with a definite historical event or a definite historical person (see Heda Jason, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/539740.pdf "Concerning the 'Historical' and the 'Local' Legends and Their Relatives," Journal of American Folklore, 84 (1971) p. 134). Inserting "legendary" into the first sentence is at best confusing. The CMT is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. Using "legendary" implies that the New Testament was made up on the basis of a historical Jesus. All of the writers who say that the NT narratives are based on the life of some historical person other than Jesus of Nazareth are saying that the NT is in some sense legendary, but that needs to be explained in a way that doesn't confuse the basic definition of the theory—which is, to repeat myself, the idea that there was no historical Jesus.

@Akhilleus: Well, this is confusing. Here is the sentence from the current version: "Additionally, some proponents of the theory argue that some of the events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity." How is this different from a legend? It certainly meets Jacob Grimm's very strict definition of legend of being connected to a definite historical person, i.e. one or more individuals who actually existed. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, the word "legend" could be applied to this specific variant of the CMT. But this variant says that a different historical figure than Jesus of Nazareth inspired the New Testament accounts. But, when you put "legend" or "legendary" in the first sentence, it implies that the CMT is a theory which thinks that a historical Jesus of Nazareth inspired the Gospel accounts. We need to avoid giving the reader that impression. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your response presupposes the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth. I suggest taking a step back and thinking of this debate along the same lines as the debate over the existence of a historical William Tell or King Arthur. These are both legends that some scholars believe are rooted in an historic personage, and others believe are purely fictional. But everyone agrees that the word legend is appropriate to describe them. A person can take either position (historical or fictional) and still call the stories a "legend". A more apt analogy might be the legend of Robin Hood. In this case, there are a number of different individuals in history that some could speculate were the "real" Robin Hood, but in all probability the figure emerged as a composite fictional character based on multiple people who did in fact exist. Again, the use of the term "legend" fits this perfectly and fits the arguments made by modern CMT proponents such as Dan Barker. I understand why opponents of CMT would like to narrowly define it for the purposes of making a straw man argument against it, but this really violates the spirit of NPOV. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that I'm an opponent of the CMT and have an ax to grind. What I want to do is accurately reflect what mainstream scholarship says about this topic (and this is exactly the spirit of NPOV). Mainstream scholarship says that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth and that the CMT is fringe. But this isn't important for the point that I was making. I'll repeat it again: the CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The lead sentence needs to state this clearly. If you put "legend" or "legendary" in the opening sentence, you define the theory in such a way that its proponents believe that the New Testament was inspired by a historical Jesus of Nazareth. And this is not an accurate definition of the theory...

I don't know anything about Dan Barker, but if this page is an accurate statement of his views (it has his byline, but I don't know if the website is reliable), he wouldn't disagree with the definition of the CMT given in this article. He writes: "There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. It is impossible to prove he was a historical figure. It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented." For further reading, he lists books by G.A. Wells, Robert Price, Freke/Gandy, and J.M. Robertson, people whom this article discusses as advocates of the theory. So I'm having trouble understanding why you think the article employs a "straw man" definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus for the link to Dan Barker's article. I have just been reading his book "Godless" and this page you reference is an excellent summary of the basic arguments for the CMT. In my opinion, a good article on CMT would lay out the arguments that are made in this article and in his book in one section, and the rebuttal to the theory would be presented in another section. Obviously this would be written from an NPOV perspective, being sure to identify what aspects of the arguments on both sides are opinion and what aspects of the arguments are based on facts.

The history of the idea and the people who have proposed it in the past may be interesting reading to some, but should probably be split out into an entirely different article, with just a brief summary provided in this main article.

RE: the straw man argument, I think it is important for the reader to understand that the CMT can include the idea that the legend of Jesus Christ may have emerged in a fashion similar to the legend of Robin Hood, i.e. was partially based on multiple stories about multiple real people that got subsumed into a single narrative. The diagram by Eugene that shows the story of Jesus as unrelated in any way whatsoever to any living person who ever existed is a misrepresentation of the ideas that have been presented by a number of CMT proponents. I might also point out that Dan Barker uses the word legend in this article that you reference to describe his position on the issue. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go back through the archive you will see that composite character was part of the definition back when this was called the Jesus Myth theory. However there are several sources that define Christ Myth Theory as Jesus not existing period which leaves the issue of where does the idea of the Gospel Jesus being a composite character composed of several historical teachers one or more who may have lived in the first century fit into this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On "contemporaneous records", I made a comment on that above, in between two of your comments. Suffice it to say that the mainstream position is that the NT is evidence of Jesus' existence, and parts of it come into being in the mid-to-late 1st century. So it's worth being precise about "contemporaneous" here. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POV issues and WP:OWN problems

I have added the POV tag to this article, to reflect the fact that the WP community recently delisted it as a good article due to its POV issues and WP:OWN problems. This is just a warning to other editors who dip their toe in this pond and try to make changes to this article as I did.

To get a pretty quick idea of what is going on, check out this page:

Good article reassessment of CMT

It is clear to me from the discussion that there are two camps at war in editing this page. The POV which currently dominates is one which enforces strict criteria for "notability" in order to give an advantage to the anti-CMT POV. These criteria are not in compliance with Wikipedia standards. Currently this camp is exhibiting WP:OWN behaviors which make it impossible to resolve the POV issues.

The article presents a weak straw-man version of the CMT, provides very limited elaboration of the evidence for the theory and has a much larger amount of material focused on arguments against the theory. It also focuses too much on the history of the ideas and the people associated with the theory, instead of the theory itself.

If you peruse the archives you will see that there are HUGE unresolved POV issues with this article, and it is hard for me to see how these can be resolved currently.

My understanding of the WP policy is that the POV warning tag should remain at the top of this article until these issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Template:POV, particularly the section that reads 'The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.' Your purpose here seems to be to express frustration and warn other readers that you think the article is biased. This is not what the template is for. If you think there are substantive problems with the article, please discuss them. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus, you make a very good point. I am not adding the tag as a "badge of shame". The existence of POV and WP:OWN issues is documented elsewhere by editors far more experienced than me:

Good article reassessment of CMT

My apologies if my above comments caused any offense. I believe I have presented a number of specific concerns about the lack of NPOV. In looking at the archives of the talk page I see that a number of editors have also raised concerns that remain unresolved. Hopefully editors from opposing sides of the controversy can work together in good faith to resolve these issues. My concern is that editors like myself who do not hold the anti-CMT position will become discouraged, as I am getting, and simply give up on this thing and "get a life". Removing the POV tag with the issues unresolved simply because no editor wants to spend their life taking on the "owners" of this article is not really doing a service to the integrity of this article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we've come to the point where we need to start discussing implementing a FAQ. I have no intention of rehashing old arguments when a FAQ can be much more efficient. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, I appreciate being informed that the POV tag is not supposed to be used as a warning or a badge of shame. I am fairly new to the WP editing process, so I am learning as I go and I intend to be involved in this process in good faith.

How is an FAQ written from a POV going to resolve this articles POV issues? Wasn't there already an FAQ in the past that was deleted because of complaints about its POV? I think I saw that somewhere in the archives. How can we ensure that an FAQ is not just a mechanism used by some editors to attempt to control the POV of the article?

Please note that this article's POV issues are documented here by multiple editors: Good article reassessment of CMT I am just the messenger, adding a tag to help make this article better. Please don't shoot the messenger. Or remove the POV tag until the POV issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For more extensive discussion of the many POV problems that this article has, see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, this really won't do. The POV tag must relate to an active, ongoing dispute on the article with discussion on the talk page. Links to archived discussions don't constitute active, ongoing discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, we are having an active ongoing dispute right now here on the talk page. The pages that I have referenced simply document that these issues have been ongoing and remain unresolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A FAQ can be used to answer...well...frequently asked questions. And the reason the previous faq was removed was because it didn't support certain editors' preconceived notions/POV. PLH, you are asking questions and making accusations that have been made innumerable times before, and which have been ultimately rejected. So, I ask you once again, before making any edits to the article, please discuss them here first. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the same POV problems keep emerging as different editors come across this page should be a red flag that it has POV issues. The fact that editors who want an article that presents the pro-CMT and anti-CMT positions in a balanced and unbiased manner are being overruled by the WP:OWN editors who clearly have an anti-CMT view does not mean that the POV issues have been resolved. It just means that some editors give up, move on, and then some new editors come along to try to fight the same battle for NPOV that was previously lost. I really need to get a life and move on from this ridiculous debate. You win. The integrity of Wikipedia loses. Whatever. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the POV, but there does seem to be a bit of OWN. I would recommend remembering that it's just a wikipedia article, and if it stresses you out, work on something that isn't stressful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence: no, the only thing that that indicates is the fact that few people know that virtually no scholar supports the CMT; and not only that, they ridicule it if they don't just outright dismiss it. Many well-meaning people, such as yourself, believe that the CMT theory is plausible. It isn't. It has been almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars. But don't take my word for it. Check out former FAQ #2 here.

Also, according to WP:Fringe, it is not possible to present this theory in a balanced manner any more that it is possible to present the so-called moon landing hoax in balanced manner. Neutral? Yes. Balanced? No. If you have the time, check out this audio by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman (who is NOT a Christian, but is an atheist/agnostic). It's not long and I think it would be well worth your time. And please remember, this article is about a physical, historical person who did or did not exist. It's not about the miraculous claims of the bible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CMT is not a fringe theory, using the Wikipedia criteria. "Fringe theory" refers to pseudoscience, not the questioning of theology on the basis of empirical evidence. If the majority of Book-of-Mormon-scholars reject the theory that the Book of Mormon was a hoax document written by John Smith, is the hoax theory a fringe theory? After all, Book-of-Mormon-scholars by definition are the experts in the field. Of course not. By your criteria of "reliable source", which violates the Wikipedia criteria BTW, any non-Book-of-Mormon-scholars should not even be mentioned in an article about the hoax theory unless they have written at least three articles on the subject that have appeared in scholarly journals devoted to the study of the Book of Mormon.

I listened to the radio dialogue between Bart Ehrman and an unidentified radio personality and I found it fairly worthless for the purpose of evaluating the veracity of claims for the historicity of Jesus. The radio personality was not well-versed in the issues, so it can not be regarded as an even-handed debate. I was frankly shocked to hear Bart Ehrman making the claim that the evidence for the existence of Christ is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar has many many extant contemporaneous documents that refer to him. Jesus of Nazareth has zero. None. Zip. Nada. (The first documents that reference Jesus were written by Paul at least ten years after the crucifixion-story-point-in-time.) Julius Caesar has plentiful physical evidence, e.g. statues and coins that clearly were created during his recorded lifetime. Jesus has none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If, from these facts, a leading scholar who says he is an agnostic can claim the evidence for the existence of the two figures is equally strong, then there is clearly something wrong with the mechanism theologians are using to evaluate evidence. (A more honest statement would be that the evidence for a single historic Jesus is as strong as the evidence for a single historic Robin Hood.)PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For a more detailed argument about why CMT is not a fringe theory (and possibly mislabeled as a single cohesive theory at all) please see my response here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman isn't a theologian. He's a historian of early Christianity. It would be nice if you stopped assuming that everyone who writes about the historical Jesus is motivated by faith, and recognized that scholars of religion are the sort of mainstream sources that should be used to write this article, and any article about early Christianity—these are the recognized academic experts in this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, Bart Ehrman is a "New Testament scholar" according to his WP page, so I concede your point; substitute the words "bible scholars" for the word "theologians" above. Now please address the actual argument regarding the completely different level of credible documentation of Julius Ceasar's existence vs. Jesus' existence and the problem that exists when even an agnostic bible scholar like Bart Ehrman cannot seem to see the impact of this fact on historicity. I am not saying we should exclude bible scholars, just that we should not exclude non-bible-scholars who meet the credible-sources-standard of Wikipedia. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter? I mean, it's fairly obvious that there's more physical evidence for Caesar than there is for Jesus, and it's also the case that when people are speaking extemporaneously in an interview situation, they make statements that are less careful than the ones they'd make in print. This is one reason why I think we shouldn't use podcasts as sources. Use printed sources instead, peer-reviewed if possible. It should be obvious, though, that Ehrman's opinions are more important than mine or yours, since he's an expert in the subject and we're not. And he thinks the evidence for Jesus' existence is strong, and another thing he says in that podcast is absolutely correct—“we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It matters because it demonstrates the intellectual blind spot of bible scholars when it comes to objectively evaluating the veracity of the bible, even when they profess to be unaffected by their years of faith-based instruction. This statement that you say is "absolutely correct" is astoundingly wrong and misleading. This page lists dozens of writers from the period of Jesus' alleged lifetime: Classical Latin. The fact that we have their writings is stronger proof of their existence than the proof we have for Jesus. Every single contemporary who is mentioned in all of these writings has stronger proof of existence than the proof we have for Jesus. (There are no contemporaneous documents that mention Jesus during his alleged lifetime. None. Zip. Nada.) This is just basic logic. Why is that so hard for bible scholars to grasp? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to defer to an expert on the ancient world rather than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. If you want to find out why Ehrman thinks that the evidence for Jesus' existence is just as strong or stronger than the evidence for other ancient people, I suggest you take a look at his works, and the works of other scholars who study the historical Jesus. You can get a start at Historicity of Jesus, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources in themselves; they only serve as a starting point for further research. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority? Really? That's your best answer? Are you suggesting that there is anything stronger to prove the existence of something in history than multiple contemporaneous extant documents? Do I really have to read the collected works of Bart Ehrman to find out what that stronger standard of proof actually is? I sure wish someone would just tell me what it is.

--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I would like to apologize now and in the future for any tone in my comments that might be seen as violating the spirit of Wikilove. I really do not hold any personal ill intent to anyone who is engaged in this discussion. Thanks.)--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about appeal to authority. The articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, which is a form of appeal to authority. Basically, we're just supposed to summarize authoritative sources, rather than make arguments on our own. As for not answering your question, I can do it of course, and the basic reason why Ehrman and other scholars think the evidence for Jesus' evidence is strong, it's precisely because of the letters of Paul and the Gospels, documents written not long after Jesus' death. And this is something that people who don't study the ancient world probably don't understand: because of the paucity of surviving evidence, there are lots of people whose existence is only attested in documents from centuries after their deaths. Try Pythagoras, Empedocles, Solon, Cylon of Athens, Croesus, and so on. Yes, some of those guys left writing behind that's (allegedly) by them, but it's only quoted by much later documents. So when you have documents that may be from 1-2 decades after Jesus' death, that's much better than centuries afterward; it's within living memory of the person, for one thing. The Gospels are somewhat later, but most scholars think that material in them derives from oral tradition or earlier written documents within the early Christian community, passed down from people who knew Jesus personally. So again, you have evidence that's pretty close to the person himself. But the reason that I prefer not to answer questions like this is because my opinion counts for nothing in comparison to expert opinion, and because conversations like this are usually futile—when Wikipedia editors start opposing "basic logic" to scholarship they disagree with, that's usually a sign they think they're smarter than these guys with their fancy Ph.Ds, and aren't going to be receptive to the actual scholarship...but maybe I'm wrong, in which case you're better off reading Ehrman yourself than asking me what he thinks, because I haven't read him. And in any case, this article is about a theory that says the historical evidence is poor; it doesn't need to cover in detail why people think the evidence is strong, because we have Historicity of Jesus for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) I think that WP:FRINGE says that we should cover why an argument is poor, and what the strong evidence is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher: good point. But this article should devote the bulk of its attention to the CMT—extensive refutation makes readers feel the article has a POV. So this article should briefly cover why the mainstream thinks there's good evidence for historicity, and refer the reader to historicity of Jesus for more detail. That's my $.02, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag needs to stay on this article until the disputes are resolved. Multiple editors feel that it's inherently problematic, but we haven't been allowed to fix it. That's the kind of situation in which a POV tag is appropriate, and I speak as someone who otherwise doesn't like them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse restoration of the POV tag. Is there an OWN tag? There are still issues, inter alia, with:

• most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship. - most?
• In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism - how did this get back in?
• English historian Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but much of recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well. - ad hominem, Not an argument.
• Despite their unevenness - redundant sleaze.
• Thus when the Zurich professor Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel identified just nine "pillar passages" in the gospels which he thought early Christians could not have invented, they proved to be tempting targets for Christ myth theorists—despite Schmiedel's intention that these passages serve as the foundation for a fuller reconstruction of Jesus' life. Redundant
• Joseph Klausner wrote that biblical scholars "tried their hardest to find in the historic Jesus something which is not Judaism; but in his actual history they have found nothing of this whatever, since this history is reduced almost to zero. It is therefore no wonder that at the beginning of this century there has been a revival of the eighteenth and nineteenth century view that Jesus never existed." - redundant waffle
• Evidence for this cult was supposedly found - supposedly
• His work proved popular enough - enough.
• the American New Testament critic Robert M. Price has sought to represent the thesis - sought to?
• An argument commonly presented in connection with the Christ myth theory is that the biblical material related to the life of Jesus bears allegedly striking similarities to both Jewish and pagan stories which preceded it. -allegedly.
• James D.G. Dunn has written that Christ myth theorist Robert Price with regard to the epistles ignores "what everyone else in the business regards as primary data." Dunn writes that Price's interpretation is "a ludicrous claim that simply diminishes the credibility of the arguments used in support." - not an argument.
• and that "no serious work on Jesus places him outside that context" - not an argument

I recommend we move Marxist and soviet adoption down to Ideological issues. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, you and others have personal opinions that happen to disagree with what reliable sources (i.e., virtually all experts in the field) have concluded. Slapping a POV tag on the article because of your personal opinion is a violation of three core Wiki policies - specifically NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. Unless you and/or others can back up your POV and "problematic" claims with reliable sources, I'm removing the POV tag sometime tomorrow (because no one can use "consensus" to violate core policies). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism,[28] Bauer held that Mark was in fact an Italian who had been influenced by Seneca's Stoic philosophy,[29] and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine.[30]". It sounds like OR. Ref 29 and 30 have his beliefs, but ref 28 says his beliefs are in accordance with his Antisemitism? It should all be in one ref, or it's synthesis. Maybe only ref 28 is needed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Anthony provided that list; specific bits of text are much easier to deal with than sweeping charges of POV. Most of them are easily rephrased to answer Anthony's objections, too. As for moving the Marxist/Soviet bit down, I'd rather move the "ideological issues" sections up; the "atheist polemics" section should really be called New Atheism and focus on uses of the CMT that are truly notable. The "Christian apologetics" section only covers writers from the early 20th century, who were largely reacting to Arthur Drews; this material could therefore be put into Drews' subsection.

Peregrine Fisher, Bauer's antisemitism was discussed before (the discussion has probably gone into the talk page archives) and my feeling was that the issue is complex enough that it would better be covered at Bruno Bauer; an explanation detailed enough to do the matter justice would be too long for the section here (currently 5 paragraphs). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does that mean we remove the antisemitism part of the sentence, or do we move the refs around? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just chop "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism," along with the ref. This isn't OR, BTW, and Bauer's anti-Semitism is well established (see the entry at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy for details). It's just that explaining exactly what antisemitism means in mid-19th century Germany is not something that this article really needs to do... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made that change. If further discussion on this point is necessary, we should start a new section on the talk page. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to make some edits to address Anthony's concerns above. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems constructive. How about the fact that this article doesn't make it easy to find out what the CMT is, and why it isn't accepted? Most of the article seems to be about people through history and their opinion on the CMT. It's not easy for a reader to come here, get an idea of the CMT and why it's bogus. They have to read the whole article right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before part of the problem is the literature itself is not always clear on what CMT.

Bromiley is unclear if his definition of CMT is in the Jesus didn't exist at all or if it is in the he existed by the Gospels don't tell anything useful about him as he constantly shifting gears from Lucian to Wells to Bertrand Russel and he starts the rebuttal with Thallus (likelyt he worst source in all the supportive sources)

Dodd's "Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." under the page title Christ Myth Theory is similarly confusing.

Welch's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" would seem to say Meed and Ellegard with their c100 BCE Jesus are historical Jesus theorist while Wells with his mythic Paul Jesus belongs in the Christ-myth theorist--something Price, Boyd, and Doherty agree with despite Wells saying he belongs with Mack.

Schweitzer in his (1931) Out of My Life and Thought putting Frazer (who believed in a historical Jesus) with John M Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews.

Throw in pro historical Jesus non scholars like Holding who label Remsburg and Dawkins who are in Boyd's Jesus existed but the Gospels tell next to nothing camp as Christ Myth theorists and you quickly see why this article is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or it might be a mess because tendentious editors make unsupportable claims about the definition being vague.

Peregrine Fisher, if the article isn't doing a good job of providing information to the reader, that's a problem. However, this article has to have a lengthy history section, because the CMT is something that's developed over time, and each of the figures named has a different take. Bruno Bauer, for instance, never makes any appeal to mythological parallels, and believed that Christianity arose in an almost entirely Greco-Roman context (i.e. not Jewish). Drews, on the other hand, thinks that Christianity arose from a Jewish monotheistic cult of a deity named Joshua, who became the Jesus we see in the NT; other authors give different reasons why Jesus isn't historical, and alternative pictures of the rise of Christianity. So the history section, if done correctly, explains clearly each author's version of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the article on sound ground in identifying one "Christ myth theory" that changed through time? Or is it actually giving a false impression of continuity and coherence to some ideas that have a logical but no historical connection? (I don't know, am actually asking, but it does seem to be the crucial issue.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (BruceGrubb will tell you differently, but he's been making copy-pasted versions of the same post over and over again for years now.) The crucial reason for thinking so is that multiple academic sources treat the subject this way. An easily accessible sources is Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, ch. 1. Walter P. Weaver The Historical Jesus in the 20th Century, 1900-1950 has good material in Ch. 2 and a second bit starting on p. 300. There's really no shortage of academic sources covering the theory, its definition, arguments, and prominent figures. By and large you find the same people named as important advocates of the theory—Bauer, Drews, Smith, Robertson, Wells, etc. The same people we cover in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through both of these now, within the limitations of Google Books preview. Van Voorst goes through the history of the rejection of Jesus' historicity fairly quickly, as a preliminary to looking for Jesus in ancient literature. Weaver's treatment is more lengthy. Neither of them say that they are discussing "the Christ myth". I don't think that either of them are experts on 18th century, 19th century or 20th century philosophy or thought, which you need to be to work out some of the nuancess. I'm not sure what Weaver's field of academic scholarship is but his publisher seems to be a Christian, rather than an academic one. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's "Christ myth theory", actually, and it's true that neither Van Voorst or Weaver use the phrase. But the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept—the theory that there was no historical Jesus. Both Van Voorst and Weaver are discussing the history of that idea. Weaver (and it's Walter Weaver not William as I originally wrote) is Emeritus Professor of Religion at Southern Florida College and former chair of the Humanities Division there. Since this article falls within history of ideas/history of scholarship, Weaver and Van Voorst both seem well-qualified to comment on the history of their academic fields. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter, G.A. Wells, who is an expert on 18th-19th century German intellectual history, gives more or less the same overview of the CMT as Van Voorst, etc. (except of course that he's more sympathetic to the CMT). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Akhilleus seems not to realize that "the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept" claim would fall under WP:SYN which clearly states "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." and WP:OR with its "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." something I pointed out way back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_21 with the statement "To date no reliable source has been produced to explain the variance in the definitions of "Christ myth theory" in ALL the sources sited and until such is produced trying to say "Christ myth theory" mean a certain thing is OR." (08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)) So far what we have gotten has been a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding this key point. Ignoring the fact that Welsh's definition would cause Wells current position to bridge the ground between Christ Myth theory and historical Jesus theory is not going to make it go away. It is a fact that Price, Boyd, and Doherty all put Wells into the Christ Myth theorist category after Jesus Myth something Wells challenges at least as far as Boyd is concerned but the issue is are they all using the same definition? Price doesn't classify himself as a Christ Myth theorist either but Boyd clear puts him in that category. These all point to something not being consistent with the way Christ Myth Theory is used. Also on 12 February 2009 Akhilleus himself states "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research." after I pointed out on 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009, clear examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Akhilleus.

The Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 showed eight other editors pointing out this article having WP:POV or WP:OR issues if not both and we have POV tag on this article again. Clearly there is something wrong with the article and it is NOT due to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the above - and correct me if I'm wrong - but what I think you're saying is that in this article, the "Christ Myth Theory" is being defined by its opponents. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the definitions I am finding by both supporters and opponents don't seem to agree within the groups nor between them and the article's definition does not reflect that fact. Some clearly don't mesh up; trying to explain how Wells current position doesn't fits both of Welsh's definitions (ie being simultaneously Christ Myth Theory and historical Jesus theory at the same time) is a real issue when you have three other people all independently calling Wells a mythic-Jesus thesis, Christ Myth theorist or Jesus myth theorist long after he was presenting the idea that there was a historical Q-Jesus.

It certainly doesn't help when you realize Boyd is arguing against the Legendary-Jesus thesis which ranges from Bauer to Crossan and doesn't always tell you when he changes his line of thought. For instance 186 Boyd expressly states "thereby refuting the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." but on 202 it is pointed out that the idea that 'Jesus lived in the distance' past part of the extreme Legendary-Jesus thesis group which only partly includes the Christ myth theory group. But Habermas in 1996 citing Was Jesus crucified under Pilate? in The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ said "Wells admits that his position depends on the assertion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus who had lived recently. He suggests that, for Paul, Jesus may have lived long before "and attracted no followers until he began, in Paul's own day, to make resurrection appearances."" Oh by the way at you can see on my talk page Akhilleus has said he may fill a WP:RFC/U in an effort to shut me up; boarder line WP:GAME IMHO.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's one way of dealing with a tendentious editor who keeps making the same post over and over again. In your comment above, you're harping on a comment I made in February 2009, almost a year and a half ago. Even before that, you've been repeatedly making the same argument that the definition is ambiguous, often simply copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, and you have paid no attention to responses that you 1) tendentious misinterpret sources and 2) do not understand that Wikipedia articles are about concepts (in this case, the theory that there was no historical Jesus) rather than phrases ("Christ myth theory"). This is wasting huge amounts of time, filling up way too many talk page archives, and holding back progress on the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By "Boyd" BruceGrubb seems to be referring to Eddy & Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic 2007). They believe that the Gospels are largely historically reliable (a "maximalist" position). Anybody who thinks that there's a historical core to the Gospels, but that much of the material in them is theological elaboration and therefore much of the Gospel narrative isn't historical, gets called a "legendary Jesus" theorist by Eddy/Boyd. That includes a lot of mainstream scholarship, like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman. Nevertheless Eddy/Boyd make distinctions among legendary Jesus theorists, and group advocates of a nonhistorical Jesus together. Wells has responded to Eddy/Boyd in his 2009 book Cutting Jesus Down to Size, and complains (quite legitimately) that Eddy/Boyd haven't read his most recent books carefully, because he (Wells) now thinks that there was a historical Jesus. There's been some talk page discussion about this: Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_33#G._A._Wells. Now, I think Eddy/Boyd are idiosyncratic in creating this category of "legendary Jesus theorists", but it's important to note that even for them, the CMT is in a category of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And it might be worth quoting Eddy/Boyd, pp. 24-25, where they break down categories of what they term the legendary-Jesus thesis. Category 1 is the CMT: "1. Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional in nature (i.e. 'legendary' as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch in common parlance 'myth' tends to connote a fictitious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that view have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back off this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of 'Jesus agnosticism' emerges." The phrase "Christ myth theory" doesn't appear here, but when the phrase does appear in the book, it's always to this category 1 position, e.g. p. 165: "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorist argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can no very little about him. Others (i.e. Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend." On the following page Earl Doherty is called a Christ myth theorist; elsewhere G. A. Wells is called a Christ myth theorist. Eddy/Boyd use "Christ myth theory" in the same sense as this article, and name some of the same people this article discusses as prominent advocates of the theory; this recent academic book supports the definition of this article, instead of questioning it as BruceGrubb claims. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would remind Akhilleus that he made no point regarding "Wikipedia articles are about concepts" when Eugene was doing his "Christ myth theory" phrase nonsense on this talk page. For future reference, I would ask just exactly where in the Wikipedia rules and guild-lines this statement is made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICDEF. Point #2 under "Wikipedia is not a dictionary": "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to opening paragraphs

I have made a few changes to the first paragraphs of this article to provide more detail to the central arguments that underlie the Christ myth theory, as well as to try to make it more NPOV.

I notice that User:Bill the Cat 7 removed my changes with the comment "He misunderstands what the CMT is and also seems to be pushing a POV." The goal of my changes is to make the article more consistent with the theory, and to make the article more neutral and NPOV.

Since User:Bill the Cat 7 offered no additional details for why these changes should be removed, I am reinstating them for now, with the following justification provided below. I understand that some may be attached to the previous version, but think it would be better for the integrity of the article if you do not revert the changes without providing a detailed justification that can be evaluated by the community.

I believe that I have added a number of facts which are generally undisputed by both proponents and opponents of the CMT. These facts are important for the reader to know about from the outset. Here are the changes and the reasons for them:

1) Added the word "legendary" with a link to the "Legend" wikipedia article. This is justified by the use of this term by proponents of CMT as described in this article. The next sentence, both original and as I revised it, support the use of the word "legend" to describe the position of some CMT proponents.

2) Changed "Additionally, some proponents of the theory allow that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity."

to

"Some proponents of the theory posit that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. "

The use of the term "allow" has an implied POV, as it presents the argument in relation to the opposing POV, as if they are conceding a point in a debate, whereas the word "posit" is neutral without reference to an opposing POV.

3) Changed "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods."

to

"They give priority to the earlier Christian writings, the epistles, over the later texts, the "gospels", in determining the views of the earliest Christians and note many parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods. Some suggest that Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."

The rationale for this change is to help the reader understand the relative time frame in which the epistles and the gospels were written. The epistles are earlier than the gospels, and this helps explain why someone would put more emphasis on them in understanding the views of the earliest Christians. I believe that the word "perceived" could be seen as a pejorative adjective that is being used to push the oppositional POV and should not be included. The parallels between the biography of Jesus and others are factual, well-documented and not in dispute (e.g. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, miraculous cures), though their relevance and the explanation for the parallels certainly is contested. Not all proponents of the theory agree that "Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism", so I changed the wording to reflect this fact.

3) Changed "absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century." to

"the absence of any contemporaneous historical reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the few non-Christian references to the Jesus figure in the first century C. E."

The original version of this sentence is incomplete in its summary of the arguments and evidence for the theory. The issue is not just that there are no extant references to Jesus, but that there is no contemporaneous historical evidence whatsoever. This is a fact, undisputed by both sides of the argument, and it should be included at the outset. It is also an undisputed fact that the authenticity of the non-Christian documents allegedly referencing Jesus is uncertain. The unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the Josephus quote is a good example of the factual basis of the second part of the revised statement. The original weak description is advantageous to the oppositional POV and does not provide all of the facts.

4) Changed

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship."

to

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it has little support among biblical scholars. While Christian scholars have sometimes accused proponents of the theory of pseudo-scholarship, most Bible scholars allow that the documentation of the life of Jesus is quite weak."

a) I removed the reference to "classical historians" because all of the sources referenced are bible scholars (i.e. professors with degrees in theology or bible studies from theological institutions), not classical historians (i.e. professors with degrees in classical history from secular institutions). Unless there is evidence that there are no classical historians who support at least some version of the CMT, the original assertion is not factually correct and is misleading.

b) The accusations of pseudo-scholarship can, and do, come from both sides of the issue. Documentation of ad hominem attacks is not particularly helpful to the reader, but it should at least be balanced with a counterargument. I have provided a counter-balancing statement with a reference to a leading proponent of the theory, Dan Barker.

c) The goal here is to make this sentence more balanced in POV, rather than to emphasize just the POV of those who oppose CMT.

d) It is more accurate to say the theory has "little support" among bible scholars. To say it is "essentially without support", overstates the case, as obviously the theory itself is one that has historically been presented and defended by some bible scholars.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Context and Definition section, I made some similar changes to reflect the facts and provide more context and to make it more NPOV.

• Changed "Modern scholarship generally believes that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." to "The majority of Christian Bible scholars believe that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." The term "modern scholarship" is overly general as a noun in this case, and is really an unprovable assertion, as "modern scholarship" cannot be said to be 100% in agreement with the oppositional POV. "The majority of Christian Bible scholars" more accurately describes the group of people who represent the oppositional POV.

"Modern scholarship generally believes" is accurate; "Christian Bible scholars" seems to say that all bible scholars are Christians. Perhaps you just meant "the majority of New Testament scholars"? But that wouldn't capture the full range of scholars who have written about Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Changed "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself are known. Further, no account of Jesus' actions and teachings were produced during his lifetime." to "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself or any of his contemporaries, Christian or non-Christian, have ever been found. Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from that time period." This more accurately reflects the undisputed facts that are the basis of the CMT. The previous version is a weaker version that supports the oppositional POV by omission of important facts. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard claim would be that the letters of Paul and the Gospels are "extant historical documents from that time period" that record Jesus' existence. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "that time period"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "that time period" is intended to refer to "his lifetime". All scholars agree that the letters of Paul and the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. How about changing this to: "Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from the period of time that the New Testament says he lived." Does that make it clearer? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Changed "The Christ myth theory, however, stands entirely outside this continuum. It argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, simply never existed at all." to "In contrast, the Christ myth theory argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, either never existed at all, or is a legendary figure whose actual existence simply cannot be proven." This more accurately reflects the range of opinion that exists within the CMT camp. This range of opinion is well-documented within the article and is also stated from the outset in both the original and my revised version of the second sentence of the article.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, PeaceLoveHarmony, but I find that your edits are not improvements to the article. Some of the things you say above are simply factually incorrect (such as the claim that bible scholars are not from "secular" institutions), others result in a dramatic understatement of the scholarly disdain for the CMT at present, and others dilute the definition of the CMT itself. As an example of the last problem, your insertion of "legendary" into the beginning sentence. The CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. But inserting "legendary" would mean that the CMT includes people who think that the Gospels are a theological elaboration of the life of a real, historical person—i.e. a vast number of mainstream scholars writing about the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Akhilleus, I appreciate it. Please note that I did not state that bible scholars are not from "secular" institutions. I stated that the specific scholars who were referenced were all bible scholars with degrees from religious institutions, not classical historians. Please re-read my argument above, which was making a distinction between bible scholars and classical historians. Your response misrepresents what I said. I understand that bible-believing faith-based scholars of religious institutions would have disdain for a theory that undercuts the very basis of their belief system. This is not a surprise, is it? However, it is disingenuous to create a criteria for "mainstream scholarship" that only includes this group, when there are plenty of reliable sources, using Wikipedia's guidelines, that in fact advocate strongly for the CMT. These views should be included if this article is going to maintain NPOV.

This article presents two very prominent advocates of CMT using the word "legend" to describe the Jesus myth. For one, the title of one of Wells' books is "The Jesus Legend" The second example is this: "In a forward to The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Mark Hall writes that Allegro suggested the scrolls all but proved that a historical Jesus never existed. "According to Allegro," he wrote, "the Jesus of the gospels is a fictional character in a religious legend, which like many similar tales in circulation at the turn of the era, was merely an amalgamation of Messianic eschatology and garbled historical events".

The idea that the Jesus stories are loosely based on more than one itinerant messianic teachers and that the stories themselves may or may not be based on fact is consistent with the view of some CMT proponents and is in harmony with the use of the word Legend. Wikipedia currently defines Legend thusly: "A legend (Latin, legenda, "things to be read") is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Legend, for its active and passive participants includes no happenings that are outside the realm of "possibility", defined by a highly flexible set of parameters, which may include miracles that are perceived as actually having happened, within the specific tradition of indoctrination where the legend arises, and within which it may be transformed over time, in order to keep it fresh and vital, and realistic." Note that this definition deals with perception of historicity, not the facts of historicity. Let me put it another way. Suppose that the Jesus story is based on folklore that emerged regarding five different itinerant messianic teachers of the first century and which was eventually consolidated into a single narrative describing a single person. This is the viewpoint of a number of CMT proponents, as is well-documented in this article, and certainly fits the definition of "legend".

I am restoring the changes that I made, because you have not effectively rebutted the individual arguments I have painstakingly made for each change, and instead have made a few unsubstantiated blanket statements rejecting them all, without even addressing most of my points.

For example you did not provide any refutation of the additional facts which I added with regard to the lack of contemporaneous historical record of Jesus' existence. These facts are not disputed by opponents of CMT, and it only enhances the article to include these facts.

Please provide the community with a more detailed justification for your position, and if you wish to change what I have added, please make specific changes, not a wholesale revert of everything without providing justification.

Thanks! PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, the issues you are concerned about have been discussed before. So, before you make any changes, I strongly suggest that you go through the archives to familiarize yourself with the issues. If you don't want to go through the archives, then please discuss any changes you wish to make before implementing them. Any changes made without a full discussion will be reverted. Thank you for your understanding. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Bill in asking PeaceLoveHarmony to read the talk page archives. I know there are a lot of them, but since there's a lot of repetition, you can get the main points fairly quickly. Most of what PeaceLoveHarmony is saying above has been covered before (often multiple times) in previous discussions. E.g. your point that the sources used are "bible-believing faith-based scholars of religious institutions" has come up again and again, and the basic response is 1) not all of the sources are bible scholars (footnote #2 currently cites G.A. Wells, who was once an advocate of the CMT); 2) not all bible scholars get their degrees from, or work at, religious institutions; 3) some of the sources cited, even ones that have gotten degrees from theological seminaries, don't consider themselves Christians (Bart Ehrman for example); 4) the sources should be selected on the basis of expertise and authority, and people like Graham Stanton and James Charlesworth are eminent scholars who are in good positions to assess the consensus of scholarship. And really, your implied argument, that Christians are incapable of thinking rationally about the history of early Christianity, is biased and offensive.

I agree, though, that the lead doesn't currently cite a classical historian, so a citation to Michael Grant should be restored at the end of the lead.

On "legend": please don't rely on Wikipedia entries or book titles for the meaning of this word. There's a lot of work in the academic fields of anthropology, folklore, etc. which uses "legend" to denote traditional narratives that have a kernel of historicity—not just historical truth in the eyes of the teller and audience, but actual historicity. Jacob Grimm's original definition of legend stated that it was either connected with a definite historical event or a definite historical person (see Heda Jason, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/539740.pdf "Concerning the 'Historical' and the 'Local' Legends and Their Relatives," Journal of American Folklore, 84 (1971) p. 134). Inserting "legendary" into the first sentence is at best confusing. The CMT is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. Using "legendary" implies that the New Testament was made up on the basis of a historical Jesus. All of the writers who say that the NT narratives are based on the life of some historical person other than Jesus of Nazareth are saying that the NT is in some sense legendary, but that needs to be explained in a way that doesn't confuse the basic definition of the theory—which is, to repeat myself, the idea that there was no historical Jesus.

@Akhilleus: Well, this is confusing. Here is the sentence from the current version: "Additionally, some proponents of the theory argue that some of the events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity." How is this different from a legend? It certainly meets Jacob Grimm's very strict definition of legend of being connected to a definite historical person, i.e. one or more individuals who actually existed. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, the word "legend" could be applied to this specific variant of the CMT. But this variant says that a different historical figure than Jesus of Nazareth inspired the New Testament accounts. But, when you put "legend" or "legendary" in the first sentence, it implies that the CMT is a theory which thinks that a historical Jesus of Nazareth inspired the Gospel accounts. We need to avoid giving the reader that impression. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your response presupposes the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth. I suggest taking a step back and thinking of this debate along the same lines as the debate over the existence of a historical William Tell or King Arthur. These are both legends that some scholars believe are rooted in an historic personage, and others believe are purely fictional. But everyone agrees that the word legend is appropriate to describe them. A person can take either position (historical or fictional) and still call the stories a "legend". A more apt analogy might be the legend of Robin Hood. In this case, there are a number of different individuals in history that some could speculate were the "real" Robin Hood, but in all probability the figure emerged as a composite fictional character based on multiple people who did in fact exist. Again, the use of the term "legend" fits this perfectly and fits the arguments made by modern CMT proponents such as Dan Barker. I understand why opponents of CMT would like to narrowly define it for the purposes of making a straw man argument against it, but this really violates the spirit of NPOV. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that I'm an opponent of the CMT and have an ax to grind. What I want to do is accurately reflect what mainstream scholarship says about this topic (and this is exactly the spirit of NPOV). Mainstream scholarship says that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth and that the CMT is fringe. But this isn't important for the point that I was making. I'll repeat it again: the CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The lead sentence needs to state this clearly. If you put "legend" or "legendary" in the opening sentence, you define the theory in such a way that its proponents believe that the New Testament was inspired by a historical Jesus of Nazareth. And this is not an accurate definition of the theory...

I don't know anything about Dan Barker, but if this page is an accurate statement of his views (it has his byline, but I don't know if the website is reliable), he wouldn't disagree with the definition of the CMT given in this article. He writes: "There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. It is impossible to prove he was a historical figure. It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented." For further reading, he lists books by G.A. Wells, Robert Price, Freke/Gandy, and J.M. Robertson, people whom this article discusses as advocates of the theory. So I'm having trouble understanding why you think the article employs a "straw man" definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus for the link to Dan Barker's article. I have just been reading his book "Godless" and this page you reference is an excellent summary of the basic arguments for the CMT. In my opinion, a good article on CMT would lay out the arguments that are made in this article and in his book in one section, and the rebuttal to the theory would be presented in another section. Obviously this would be written from an NPOV perspective, being sure to identify what aspects of the arguments on both sides are opinion and what aspects of the arguments are based on facts.

The history of the idea and the people who have proposed it in the past may be interesting reading to some, but should probably be split out into an entirely different article, with just a brief summary provided in this main article.

RE: the straw man argument, I think it is important for the reader to understand that the CMT can include the idea that the legend of Jesus Christ may have emerged in a fashion similar to the legend of Robin Hood, i.e. was partially based on multiple stories about multiple real people that got subsumed into a single narrative. The diagram by Eugene that shows the story of Jesus as unrelated in any way whatsoever to any living person who ever existed is a misrepresentation of the ideas that have been presented by a number of CMT proponents. I might also point out that Dan Barker uses the word legend in this article that you reference to describe his position on the issue. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go back through the archive you will see that composite character was part of the definition back when this was called the Jesus Myth theory. However there are several sources that define Christ Myth Theory as Jesus not existing period which leaves the issue of where does the idea of the Gospel Jesus being a composite character composed of several historical teachers one or more who may have lived in the first century fit into this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On "contemporaneous records", I made a comment on that above, in between two of your comments. Suffice it to say that the mainstream position is that the NT is evidence of Jesus' existence, and parts of it come into being in the mid-to-late 1st century. So it's worth being precise about "contemporaneous" here. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POV issues and WP:OWN problems

I have added the POV tag to this article, to reflect the fact that the WP community recently delisted it as a good article due to its POV issues and WP:OWN problems. This is just a warning to other editors who dip their toe in this pond and try to make changes to this article as I did.

To get a pretty quick idea of what is going on, check out this page:

Good article reassessment of CMT

It is clear to me from the discussion that there are two camps at war in editing this page. The POV which currently dominates is one which enforces strict criteria for "notability" in order to give an advantage to the anti-CMT POV. These criteria are not in compliance with Wikipedia standards. Currently this camp is exhibiting WP:OWN behaviors which make it impossible to resolve the POV issues.

The article presents a weak straw-man version of the CMT, provides very limited elaboration of the evidence for the theory and has a much larger amount of material focused on arguments against the theory. It also focuses too much on the history of the ideas and the people associated with the theory, instead of the theory itself.

If you peruse the archives you will see that there are HUGE unresolved POV issues with this article, and it is hard for me to see how these can be resolved currently.

My understanding of the WP policy is that the POV warning tag should remain at the top of this article until these issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Template:POV, particularly the section that reads 'The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.' Your purpose here seems to be to express frustration and warn other readers that you think the article is biased. This is not what the template is for. If you think there are substantive problems with the article, please discuss them. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus, you make a very good point. I am not adding the tag as a "badge of shame". The existence of POV and WP:OWN issues is documented elsewhere by editors far more experienced than me:

Good article reassessment of CMT

My apologies if my above comments caused any offense. I believe I have presented a number of specific concerns about the lack of NPOV. In looking at the archives of the talk page I see that a number of editors have also raised concerns that remain unresolved. Hopefully editors from opposing sides of the controversy can work together in good faith to resolve these issues. My concern is that editors like myself who do not hold the anti-CMT position will become discouraged, as I am getting, and simply give up on this thing and "get a life". Removing the POV tag with the issues unresolved simply because no editor wants to spend their life taking on the "owners" of this article is not really doing a service to the integrity of this article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we've come to the point where we need to start discussing implementing a FAQ. I have no intention of rehashing old arguments when a FAQ can be much more efficient. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, I appreciate being informed that the POV tag is not supposed to be used as a warning or a badge of shame. I am fairly new to the WP editing process, so I am learning as I go and I intend to be involved in this process in good faith.

How is an FAQ written from a POV going to resolve this articles POV issues? Wasn't there already an FAQ in the past that was deleted because of complaints about its POV? I think I saw that somewhere in the archives. How can we ensure that an FAQ is not just a mechanism used by some editors to attempt to control the POV of the article?

Please note that this article's POV issues are documented here by multiple editors: Good article reassessment of CMT I am just the messenger, adding a tag to help make this article better. Please don't shoot the messenger. Or remove the POV tag until the POV issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For more extensive discussion of the many POV problems that this article has, see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, this really won't do. The POV tag must relate to an active, ongoing dispute on the article with discussion on the talk page. Links to archived discussions don't constitute active, ongoing discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, we are having an active ongoing dispute right now here on the talk page. The pages that I have referenced simply document that these issues have been ongoing and remain unresolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A FAQ can be used to answer...well...frequently asked questions. And the reason the previous faq was removed was because it didn't support certain editors' preconceived notions/POV. PLH, you are asking questions and making accusations that have been made innumerable times before, and which have been ultimately rejected. So, I ask you once again, before making any edits to the article, please discuss them here first. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the same POV problems keep emerging as different editors come across this page should be a red flag that it has POV issues. The fact that editors who want an article that presents the pro-CMT and anti-CMT positions in a balanced and unbiased manner are being overruled by the WP:OWN editors who clearly have an anti-CMT view does not mean that the POV issues have been resolved. It just means that some editors give up, move on, and then some new editors come along to try to fight the same battle for NPOV that was previously lost. I really need to get a life and move on from this ridiculous debate. You win. The integrity of Wikipedia loses. Whatever. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the POV, but there does seem to be a bit of OWN. I would recommend remembering that it's just a wikipedia article, and if it stresses you out, work on something that isn't stressful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence: no, the only thing that that indicates is the fact that few people know that virtually no scholar supports the CMT; and not only that, they ridicule it if they don't just outright dismiss it. Many well-meaning people, such as yourself, believe that the CMT theory is plausible. It isn't. It has been almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars. But don't take my word for it. Check out former FAQ #2 here.

Also, according to WP:Fringe, it is not possible to present this theory in a balanced manner any more that it is possible to present the so-called moon landing hoax in balanced manner. Neutral? Yes. Balanced? No. If you have the time, check out this audio by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman (who is NOT a Christian, but is an atheist/agnostic). It's not long and I think it would be well worth your time. And please remember, this article is about a physical, historical person who did or did not exist. It's not about the miraculous claims of the bible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CMT is not a fringe theory, using the Wikipedia criteria. "Fringe theory" refers to pseudoscience, not the questioning of theology on the basis of empirical evidence. If the majority of Book-of-Mormon-scholars reject the theory that the Book of Mormon was a hoax document written by John Smith, is the hoax theory a fringe theory? After all, Book-of-Mormon-scholars by definition are the experts in the field. Of course not. By your criteria of "reliable source", which violates the Wikipedia criteria BTW, any non-Book-of-Mormon-scholars should not even be mentioned in an article about the hoax theory unless they have written at least three articles on the subject that have appeared in scholarly journals devoted to the study of the Book of Mormon.

I listened to the radio dialogue between Bart Ehrman and an unidentified radio personality and I found it fairly worthless for the purpose of evaluating the veracity of claims for the historicity of Jesus. The radio personality was not well-versed in the issues, so it can not be regarded as an even-handed debate. I was frankly shocked to hear Bart Ehrman making the claim that the evidence for the existence of Christ is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar has many many extant contemporaneous documents that refer to him. Jesus of Nazareth has zero. None. Zip. Nada. (The first documents that reference Jesus were written by Paul at least ten years after the crucifixion-story-point-in-time.) Julius Caesar has plentiful physical evidence, e.g. statues and coins that clearly were created during his recorded lifetime. Jesus has none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If, from these facts, a leading scholar who says he is an agnostic can claim the evidence for the existence of the two figures is equally strong, then there is clearly something wrong with the mechanism theologians are using to evaluate evidence. (A more honest statement would be that the evidence for a single historic Jesus is as strong as the evidence for a single historic Robin Hood.)PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For a more detailed argument about why CMT is not a fringe theory (and possibly mislabeled as a single cohesive theory at all) please see my response here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman isn't a theologian. He's a historian of early Christianity. It would be nice if you stopped assuming that everyone who writes about the historical Jesus is motivated by faith, and recognized that scholars of religion are the sort of mainstream sources that should be used to write this article, and any article about early Christianity—these are the recognized academic experts in this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, Bart Ehrman is a "New Testament scholar" according to his WP page, so I concede your point; substitute the words "bible scholars" for the word "theologians" above. Now please address the actual argument regarding the completely different level of credible documentation of Julius Ceasar's existence vs. Jesus' existence and the problem that exists when even an agnostic bible scholar like Bart Ehrman cannot seem to see the impact of this fact on historicity. I am not saying we should exclude bible scholars, just that we should not exclude non-bible-scholars who meet the credible-sources-standard of Wikipedia. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter? I mean, it's fairly obvious that there's more physical evidence for Caesar than there is for Jesus, and it's also the case that when people are speaking extemporaneously in an interview situation, they make statements that are less careful than the ones they'd make in print. This is one reason why I think we shouldn't use podcasts as sources. Use printed sources instead, peer-reviewed if possible. It should be obvious, though, that Ehrman's opinions are more important than mine or yours, since he's an expert in the subject and we're not. And he thinks the evidence for Jesus' existence is strong, and another thing he says in that podcast is absolutely correct—“we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It matters because it demonstrates the intellectual blind spot of bible scholars when it comes to objectively evaluating the veracity of the bible, even when they profess to be unaffected by their years of faith-based instruction. This statement that you say is "absolutely correct" is astoundingly wrong and misleading. This page lists dozens of writers from the period of Jesus' alleged lifetime: Classical Latin. The fact that we have their writings is stronger proof of their existence than the proof we have for Jesus. Every single contemporary who is mentioned in all of these writings has stronger proof of existence than the proof we have for Jesus. (There are no contemporaneous documents that mention Jesus during his alleged lifetime. None. Zip. Nada.) This is just basic logic. Why is that so hard for bible scholars to grasp? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to defer to an expert on the ancient world rather than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. If you want to find out why Ehrman thinks that the evidence for Jesus' existence is just as strong or stronger than the evidence for other ancient people, I suggest you take a look at his works, and the works of other scholars who study the historical Jesus. You can get a start at Historicity of Jesus, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources in themselves; they only serve as a starting point for further research. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority? Really? That's your best answer? Are you suggesting that there is anything stronger to prove the existence of something in history than multiple contemporaneous extant documents? Do I really have to read the collected works of Bart Ehrman to find out what that stronger standard of proof actually is? I sure wish someone would just tell me what it is.

--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I would like to apologize now and in the future for any tone in my comments that might be seen as violating the spirit of Wikilove. I really do not hold any personal ill intent to anyone who is engaged in this discussion. Thanks.)--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about appeal to authority. The articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, which is a form of appeal to authority. Basically, we're just supposed to summarize authoritative sources, rather than make arguments on our own. As for not answering your question, I can do it of course, and the basic reason why Ehrman and other scholars think the evidence for Jesus' evidence is strong, it's precisely because of the letters of Paul and the Gospels, documents written not long after Jesus' death. And this is something that people who don't study the ancient world probably don't understand: because of the paucity of surviving evidence, there are lots of people whose existence is only attested in documents from centuries after their deaths. Try Pythagoras, Empedocles, Solon, Cylon of Athens, Croesus, and so on. Yes, some of those guys left writing behind that's (allegedly) by them, but it's only quoted by much later documents. So when you have documents that may be from 1-2 decades after Jesus' death, that's much better than centuries afterward; it's within living memory of the person, for one thing. The Gospels are somewhat later, but most scholars think that material in them derives from oral tradition or earlier written documents within the early Christian community, passed down from people who knew Jesus personally. So again, you have evidence that's pretty close to the person himself. But the reason that I prefer not to answer questions like this is because my opinion counts for nothing in comparison to expert opinion, and because conversations like this are usually futile—when Wikipedia editors start opposing "basic logic" to scholarship they disagree with, that's usually a sign they think they're smarter than these guys with their fancy Ph.Ds, and aren't going to be receptive to the actual scholarship...but maybe I'm wrong, in which case you're better off reading Ehrman yourself than asking me what he thinks, because I haven't read him. And in any case, this article is about a theory that says the historical evidence is poor; it doesn't need to cover in detail why people think the evidence is strong, because we have Historicity of Jesus for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) I think that WP:FRINGE says that we should cover why an argument is poor, and what the strong evidence is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher: good point. But this article should devote the bulk of its attention to the CMT—extensive refutation makes readers feel the article has a POV. So this article should briefly cover why the mainstream thinks there's good evidence for historicity, and refer the reader to historicity of Jesus for more detail. That's my $.02, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag needs to stay on this article until the disputes are resolved. Multiple editors feel that it's inherently problematic, but we haven't been allowed to fix it. That's the kind of situation in which a POV tag is appropriate, and I speak as someone who otherwise doesn't like them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse restoration of the POV tag. Is there an OWN tag? There are still issues, inter alia, with:

• most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship. - most?
• In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism - how did this get back in?
• English historian Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but much of recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well. - ad hominem, Not an argument.
• Despite their unevenness - redundant sleaze.
• Thus when the Zurich professor Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel identified just nine "pillar passages" in the gospels which he thought early Christians could not have invented, they proved to be tempting targets for Christ myth theorists—despite Schmiedel's intention that these passages serve as the foundation for a fuller reconstruction of Jesus' life. Redundant
• Joseph Klausner wrote that biblical scholars "tried their hardest to find in the historic Jesus something which is not Judaism; but in his actual history they have found nothing of this whatever, since this history is reduced almost to zero. It is therefore no wonder that at the beginning of this century there has been a revival of the eighteenth and nineteenth century view that Jesus never existed." - redundant waffle
• Evidence for this cult was supposedly found - supposedly
• His work proved popular enough - enough.
• the American New Testament critic Robert M. Price has sought to represent the thesis - sought to?
• An argument commonly presented in connection with the Christ myth theory is that the biblical material related to the life of Jesus bears allegedly striking similarities to both Jewish and pagan stories which preceded it. -allegedly.
• James D.G. Dunn has written that Christ myth theorist Robert Price with regard to the epistles ignores "what everyone else in the business regards as primary data." Dunn writes that Price's interpretation is "a ludicrous claim that simply diminishes the credibility of the arguments used in support." - not an argument.
• and that "no serious work on Jesus places him outside that context" - not an argument

I recommend we move Marxist and soviet adoption down to Ideological issues. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, you and others have personal opinions that happen to disagree with what reliable sources (i.e., virtually all experts in the field) have concluded. Slapping a POV tag on the article because of your personal opinion is a violation of three core Wiki policies - specifically NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. Unless you and/or others can back up your POV and "problematic" claims with reliable sources, I'm removing the POV tag sometime tomorrow (because no one can use "consensus" to violate core policies). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism,[28] Bauer held that Mark was in fact an Italian who had been influenced by Seneca's Stoic philosophy,[29] and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine.[30]". It sounds like OR. Ref 29 and 30 have his beliefs, but ref 28 says his beliefs are in accordance with his Antisemitism? It should all be in one ref, or it's synthesis. Maybe only ref 28 is needed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Anthony provided that list; specific bits of text are much easier to deal with than sweeping charges of POV. Most of them are easily rephrased to answer Anthony's objections, too. As for moving the Marxist/Soviet bit down, I'd rather move the "ideological issues" sections up; the "atheist polemics" section should really be called New Atheism and focus on uses of the CMT that are truly notable. The "Christian apologetics" section only covers writers from the early 20th century, who were largely reacting to Arthur Drews; this material could therefore be put into Drews' subsection.

Peregrine Fisher, Bauer's antisemitism was discussed before (the discussion has probably gone into the talk page archives) and my feeling was that the issue is complex enough that it would better be covered at Bruno Bauer; an explanation detailed enough to do the matter justice would be too long for the section here (currently 5 paragraphs). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does that mean we remove the antisemitism part of the sentence, or do we move the refs around? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just chop "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism," along with the ref. This isn't OR, BTW, and Bauer's anti-Semitism is well established (see the entry at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy for details). It's just that explaining exactly what antisemitism means in mid-19th century Germany is not something that this article really needs to do... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made that change. If further discussion on this point is necessary, we should start a new section on the talk page. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to make some edits to address Anthony's concerns above. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems constructive. How about the fact that this article doesn't make it easy to find out what the CMT is, and why it isn't accepted? Most of the article seems to be about people through history and their opinion on the CMT. It's not easy for a reader to come here, get an idea of the CMT and why it's bogus. They have to read the whole article right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before part of the problem is the literature itself is not always clear on what CMT.

Bromiley is unclear if his definition of CMT is in the Jesus didn't exist at all or if it is in the he existed by the Gospels don't tell anything useful about him as he constantly shifting gears from Lucian to Wells to Bertrand Russel and he starts the rebuttal with Thallus (likelyt he worst source in all the supportive sources)

Dodd's "Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." under the page title Christ Myth Theory is similarly confusing.

Welch's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" would seem to say Meed and Ellegard with their c100 BCE Jesus are historical Jesus theorist while Wells with his mythic Paul Jesus belongs in the Christ-myth theorist--something Price, Boyd, and Doherty agree with despite Wells saying he belongs with Mack.

Schweitzer in his (1931) Out of My Life and Thought putting Frazer (who believed in a historical Jesus) with John M Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews.

Throw in pro historical Jesus non scholars like Holding who label Remsburg and Dawkins who are in Boyd's Jesus existed but the Gospels tell next to nothing camp as Christ Myth theorists and you quickly see why this article is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or it might be a mess because tendentious editors make unsupportable claims about the definition being vague.

Peregrine Fisher, if the article isn't doing a good job of providing information to the reader, that's a problem. However, this article has to have a lengthy history section, because the CMT is something that's developed over time, and each of the figures named has a different take. Bruno Bauer, for instance, never makes any appeal to mythological parallels, and believed that Christianity arose in an almost entirely Greco-Roman context (i.e. not Jewish). Drews, on the other hand, thinks that Christianity arose from a Jewish monotheistic cult of a deity named Joshua, who became the Jesus we see in the NT; other authors give different reasons why Jesus isn't historical, and alternative pictures of the rise of Christianity. So the history section, if done correctly, explains clearly each author's version of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the article on sound ground in identifying one "Christ myth theory" that changed through time? Or is it actually giving a false impression of continuity and coherence to some ideas that have a logical but no historical connection? (I don't know, am actually asking, but it does seem to be the crucial issue.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (BruceGrubb will tell you differently, but he's been making copy-pasted versions of the same post over and over again for years now.) The crucial reason for thinking so is that multiple academic sources treat the subject this way. An easily accessible sources is Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, ch. 1. Walter P. Weaver The Historical Jesus in the 20th Century, 1900-1950 has good material in Ch. 2 and a second bit starting on p. 300. There's really no shortage of academic sources covering the theory, its definition, arguments, and prominent figures. By and large you find the same people named as important advocates of the theory—Bauer, Drews, Smith, Robertson, Wells, etc. The same people we cover in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through both of these now, within the limitations of Google Books preview. Van Voorst goes through the history of the rejection of Jesus' historicity fairly quickly, as a preliminary to looking for Jesus in ancient literature. Weaver's treatment is more lengthy. Neither of them say that they are discussing "the Christ myth". I don't think that either of them are experts on 18th century, 19th century or 20th century philosophy or thought, which you need to be to work out some of the nuancess. I'm not sure what Weaver's field of academic scholarship is but his publisher seems to be a Christian, rather than an academic one. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's "Christ myth theory", actually, and it's true that neither Van Voorst or Weaver use the phrase. But the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept—the theory that there was no historical Jesus. Both Van Voorst and Weaver are discussing the history of that idea. Weaver (and it's Walter Weaver not William as I originally wrote) is Emeritus Professor of Religion at Southern Florida College and former chair of the Humanities Division there. Since this article falls within history of ideas/history of scholarship, Weaver and Van Voorst both seem well-qualified to comment on the history of their academic fields. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter, G.A. Wells, who is an expert on 18th-19th century German intellectual history, gives more or less the same overview of the CMT as Van Voorst, etc. (except of course that he's more sympathetic to the CMT). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Akhilleus seems not to realize that "the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept" claim would fall under WP:SYN which clearly states "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." and WP:OR with its "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." something I pointed out way back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_21 with the statement "To date no reliable source has been produced to explain the variance in the definitions of "Christ myth theory" in ALL the sources sited and until such is produced trying to say "Christ myth theory" mean a certain thing is OR." (08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)) So far what we have gotten has been a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding this key point. Ignoring the fact that Welsh's definition would cause Wells current position to bridge the ground between Christ Myth theory and historical Jesus theory is not going to make it go away. It is a fact that Price, Boyd, and Doherty all put Wells into the Christ Myth theorist category after Jesus Myth something Wells challenges at least as far as Boyd is concerned but the issue is are they all using the same definition? Price doesn't classify himself as a Christ Myth theorist either but Boyd clear puts him in that category. These all point to something not being consistent with the way Christ Myth Theory is used. Also on 12 February 2009 Akhilleus himself states "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research." after I pointed out on 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009, clear examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Akhilleus.

The Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 showed eight other editors pointing out this article having WP:POV or WP:OR issues if not both and we have POV tag on this article again. Clearly there is something wrong with the article and it is NOT due to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the above - and correct me if I'm wrong - but what I think you're saying is that in this article, the "Christ Myth Theory" is being defined by its opponents. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the definitions I am finding by both supporters and opponents don't seem to agree within the groups nor between them and the article's definition does not reflect that fact. Some clearly don't mesh up; trying to explain how Wells current position doesn't fits both of Welsh's definitions (ie being simultaneously Christ Myth Theory and historical Jesus theory at the same time) is a real issue when you have three other people all independently calling Wells a mythic-Jesus thesis, Christ Myth theorist or Jesus myth theorist long after he was presenting the idea that there was a historical Q-Jesus.

It certainly doesn't help when you realize Boyd is arguing against the Legendary-Jesus thesis which ranges from Bauer to Crossan and doesn't always tell you when he changes his line of thought. For instance 186 Boyd expressly states "thereby refuting the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." but on 202 it is pointed out that the idea that 'Jesus lived in the distance' past part of the extreme Legendary-Jesus thesis group which only partly includes the Christ myth theory group. But Habermas in 1996 citing Was Jesus crucified under Pilate? in The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ said "Wells admits that his position depends on the assertion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus who had lived recently. He suggests that, for Paul, Jesus may have lived long before "and attracted no followers until he began, in Paul's own day, to make resurrection appearances."" Oh by the way at you can see on my talk page Akhilleus has said he may fill a WP:RFC/U in an effort to shut me up; boarder line WP:GAME IMHO.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's one way of dealing with a tendentious editor who keeps making the same post over and over again. In your comment above, you're harping on a comment I made in February 2009, almost a year and a half ago. Even before that, you've been repeatedly making the same argument that the definition is ambiguous, often simply copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, and you have paid no attention to responses that you 1) tendentious misinterpret sources and 2) do not understand that Wikipedia articles are about concepts (in this case, the theory that there was no historical Jesus) rather than phrases ("Christ myth theory"). This is wasting huge amounts of time, filling up way too many talk page archives, and holding back progress on the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By "Boyd" BruceGrubb seems to be referring to Eddy & Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic 2007). They believe that the Gospels are largely historically reliable (a "maximalist" position). Anybody who thinks that there's a historical core to the Gospels, but that much of the material in them is theological elaboration and therefore much of the Gospel narrative isn't historical, gets called a "legendary Jesus" theorist by Eddy/Boyd. That includes a lot of mainstream scholarship, like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman. Nevertheless Eddy/Boyd make distinctions among legendary Jesus theorists, and group advocates of a nonhistorical Jesus together. Wells has responded to Eddy/Boyd in his 2009 book Cutting Jesus Down to Size, and complains (quite legitimately) that Eddy/Boyd haven't read his most recent books carefully, because he (Wells) now thinks that there was a historical Jesus. There's been some talk page discussion about this: Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_33#G._A._Wells. Now, I think Eddy/Boyd are idiosyncratic in creating this category of "legendary Jesus theorists", but it's important to note that even for them, the CMT is in a category of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And it might be worth quoting Eddy/Boyd, pp. 24-25, where they break down categories of what they term the legendary-Jesus thesis. Category 1 is the CMT: "1. Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional in nature (i.e. 'legendary' as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch in common parlance 'myth' tends to connote a fictitious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that view have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back off this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of 'Jesus agnosticism' emerges." The phrase "Christ myth theory" doesn't appear here, but when the phrase does appear in the book, it's always to this category 1 position, e.g. p. 165: "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorist argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can no very little about him. Others (i.e. Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend." On the following page Earl Doherty is called a Christ myth theorist; elsewhere G. A. Wells is called a Christ myth theorist. Eddy/Boyd use "Christ myth theory" in the same sense as this article, and name some of the same people this article discusses as prominent advocates of the theory; this recent academic book supports the definition of this article, instead of questioning it as BruceGrubb claims. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would remind Akhilleus that he made no point regarding "Wikipedia articles are about concepts" when Eugene was doing his "Christ myth theory" phrase nonsense on this talk page. For future reference, I would ask just exactly where in the Wikipedia rules and guild-lines this statement is made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICDEF. Point #2 under "Wikipedia is not a dictionary": "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard 1 June 2010 – 4 June 2010

Akhilleus, the article at least must be plausible, otherwise what is the point?

It is dubious from the start because the very definition is illogical: How can one believe "Jesus never existed" while allowing that an actual first century teacher/rabbi may have articulated some of the sayings or performed some of the acts that were attributed to the gospel Jesus? Can one believe he never existed, while allowing half of Q came from an actual 1^st century individual? three quarters? all? Can one believe there was no historical Jesus but some rabbi stormed through the temple overturning tables? Can one believe there was no historical Jesus while allowing that the table turner and Q might have been the same person? Can one believe it and yet allow that the table turning Q might have been crucified? Where do you draw the line?

It fails to convince reasonable, intelligent, open-minded readers of its neutrality and veracity because it is riddled with derogatory ad hominem implications.

As for the arguments against, the first refutation of contemporary CMT is Bruce's assertion that, according to the apostle Paul, Jesus was an Israelite, descended from Abraham. His proof is Gal 3:16

¹⁶The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.

but at the end of the letter (Gal 3:28-29) Paul says

²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

making it clear that one doesn't have to be a genetic descendant of Abraham to be his seed. This is sophistry. Should I go on? Anthony (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort of missing the point of much of your post, Anthony. If you think there was no historical Jesus, you probably think most of those events never happened. (In fact, if you think there was a historical Jesus, you can still think most of those events never happened...) With your questions about Q, are you talking about G.A. Wells, or someone else? I'm confused. It would help if you stopped asking leading questions, because they don't make your meaning clear... --Akhilleus (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am pointing to three problems. You have asked me to be clearer about the first, the definition. Were my points about the snarky tone and unconvincing argument clear? I'll try to articulate my criticism of the definition more clearly. Anthony (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I think I understand what you mean about the snarky tone and the unconvincing argument. I agree that snark ought to be avoided, if only because it's a turn-off for the reader; on the other hand, many scholars find this theory absurd, and react to it in snarky ways. I think that's worth reporting, and one way to do it is through the words of people sympathetic to the theory—e.g. in several places G.A. Wells says it is customary for biblical scholars to dismiss the theory with amused contempt. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that allowing the proponents to describe the contempt of the academy is both the most effective and neutral way of conveying it in this article.

My problem with F. F. Bruce's refutation is that, if a gentile can "become" the seed of Abraham, Paul is not using "seed" to mean descendant; so Bruce's argument – Jesus = the seed of Abraham = a descendant of Abraham = a man – fails.

My problem with the CMT definition comes down to what is meant by "Jesus of Nazareth."

To say that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but "some" of the NT Jesus sayings and acts may have been said or performed by an actual individual who was not the founder of Christianity, is defining "Jesus of Nazareth" as "the founder of Christianity." But the Jesus of the Gospels did and said a great deal more than "Upon this rock I shall build my church."

If I allow that a Joshua may have rampaged through the temple and was crucified, but the rest, including "Upon this rock...", is a fiction grafted onto these insignificant events, then by this article's definition I am a mythicist. If I allow that this Joshua also preached something like the sermon on the mount but still didn't say "Upon this rock...", I am a mythicist. If I allow that he may also have been the brother of James the Just, but didn't say "Upon this rock...", by this definition, I am mythicist. Can I allow that this obscure Palestinian may have done and said all the plausible gospel stuff except "Upon this rock..." and still be a mythicist?

Why is the 1^st century Palestinian who rampaged through the temple or penned Q and made it into the gospels not "the Jesus of the New Testament"? In terms of historical inquiry, what makes the speaker of "Upon this rock..." but not the temple yobbo or pacific storyteller Jesus of Nazareth? Anthony (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are getting at Anthony. This talk page is about discussing improvements to the article, not about discussing the substantive issues in the article. We should take it for granted that there are a range of opinions, from biblical literalism to complete disbelief, and that what we need to do is to describe the opinions without taking sides, relecting the mainstream of scholarly opinion. The only questions really open to debate are around what counts are relevant scholarship. I still have some niggling worries as to what academic fields relate to this article. I don't have any worries about the good faith of editors working on the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You are seeing the tail end of a long conversation. I have made two relatively simple points: 1. snarky comments about CMT proponents in the article alienate readers and undermine the credibility of the article, and 2. the arguments against the theory have been put poorly. Both are pertinent. The third point is: The definition of Christ myth theory has been concocted on this talk page, is it accurate? Does it make sense? I'd say that is pertinent too. But it is a subtle and complex question, difficult to express and difficult to grasp. I appreciate your candor in saying you don't understand what I've written but I'd appreciate it if you reassessed the appropriateness of suggesting I shouldn't be saying it. Anthony (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, if you have reliable sources that support your contentions above, then please provide them. I can easily post a bunch of reliable sources that say that you are wrong. Furthermore, I think what Itsmejudith is implying, or I think is implying (and correct me if I'm wrong Itsmejudith) is that you are attempting to conduct original research. That is, it doesn't really matter whether you, me, or any other editor deems something to be the truth - rather, Wikipedia is about verification. Can you please provide such verification?

Also, if virtually all scholars consider the CMT as being absurd, deserving of ridicule, then fringe demands that that is documented in a Wiki article (i.e., that we must document the current level of acceptance). Consider what Fringe says:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. (emphases added.)

The relevant academic community completely rejects the CMT as ridiculous and absurd - like the Moon landing hoax and Creation science theories - and, thus, should be documented as such in this Wiki article. At any rate, I can provide verification of what the CMT is. So, what I want most from you at this point is verification of what you think the CMT is. Can you do that? I also have other issues with your arguments but let's take this one step at a time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I don't fully understand, but I think I get some of what you're saying. Where is the line drawn between someone who thinks Jesus was a myth, vs. some individual did a certain number of the things atributed to Jesus. Boy, I'll tell you, that's a question I'd like this article to answer in a clear fashion. It would allow me to come here, find out what's going on, and leave educated. That's not what this article currently does. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The most important question is: What can be verified? Here are some verifications of what the academic community has concluded (note that this used to be FAQ #2, until some editors decided that verification was not as important as personal opinions):

Numerous experts in the fields of biblical studies and ancient history indicate that scholarship is virtually unanimous in its rejection of the Christ Myth theory. Far from seeing it as a respectable minority view, many of these scholars regard the theory with contempt—sometimes quite vigorous contempt. Even the advocates of the Christ myth theory concede that their views are regarded this way by the scholarly establishement. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, the article notes this fact and seeks to present the subject according to the conventions of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. See FAQ #2 here for a whole host of citations.

So, can someone who disagrees with these abundant citations please provide an equal amount of counter citations? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill. CMT is fringe. No doubt about it. We disagree on what is the intelligent way to communicate that. I, and possibly Akhilleus, think it best to let Wells and other proponents say it in their own words. You think it is best to use the really strong and language of their opponents.

Aside from tone, another fundamental flaw with this article is its presentation of the arguments against CMT. The very first refutation of contemporary proponents I summarized above beginning with the words "As for the arguments against". It is obviously bogus. That shallow piece of sophistry must not be included if you want any sensible reader to believe the case against is strong. Only a defender of CMT would want it in the article to undermine the case against.

Finally, the present definition. "CMT is the theory that Jesus never existed" is easy to understand (the NT is pure myth and fiction) and Eugene has a long list of ref's to support it, dating back to the 1920's I think. But we say CMT also allows that some of the gospel events or sayings of Jesus may derive from an actual person, but that person was not the founder of Christianity. Qualitatively that is a very different beast. What does it mean? The earlier part of this thread is my attempt to explain the inadequacy of this synthesized definition.

Do you have an opinion about Bruce's refutation? Is it not poor? Anthony (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I don't fully understand, but I think I get some of what you're saying. Where is the line drawn between someone who thinks Jesus was a myth, vs. some individual did a certain number of the things atributed to Jesus. Boy, I'll tell you, that's a question I'd like this article to answer in a clear fashion. It would allow me to come here, find out what's going on, and leave educated. That's not what this article currently does. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it. If there are 50 plausible events attributed to Jesus in the NT, and as an historian I think 3 of them probably happened to an actual person (say, baptism, temple rampage and crucifixion), and the myth, including the founding of a church, was wrapped around this kernel of history, that makes me a mythicist by this article's definition. But wouldn't that baptized, rampaging, cruxified person be the historical Jesus? Or, let us attribute the sayings to an actual historical person and consign everything else, including the founding of a church, to myth. Wouldn't the sage who authored those sayings be the historical Jesus, even though he didn't found a church? Anthony (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, these questions are purely hypothetical, yes? In other words, there isn't anyone who says that there was no historical Jesus, but some other guy (let's call him "Fred") was baptized by John the Baptist, turned over the moneylenders' tables, and was crucified, and all of these events contributed to the New Testament figure of Jesus? Because I think the position is illogical, and I would be very surprised if anyone seriously claimed that. I don't think that would be the CMT, because, as you say, "Fred" would basically be the historical Jesus. But, if someone did claim that, what I'd try to find out is whether any secondary sources discussed that person's arguments, and to see how they classified them. In other words, the determination of whether someone is an advocate of the CMT isn't up to Wikipedia editors, but secondary sources.

I agree with the editors who think the second sentence of the lead (currently "Some proponents of the hypothesis argue that some of the events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.") is confusing, and may seem to contradict the first sentence. I didn't write this bit (as far as I remember), but what I think it's intended to cover is the ideas of people like J. M. Robertson and G. R. S. Mead, both of whom thought that there was a historical personality behind some of the NT character of Jesus, but not Jesus of Nazareth. Instead, they thought a guy named Jesus ben Pandira, whom they thought lived a century or more before Jesus of Nazareth supposedly lived, was the inspiration for (some of) the NT material. And just so we're clear, Robertson is often named as a proponent of the CMT, so there's no synthesis there. I'm not aware of any good scholarly sources covering Mead, but he does pop up on websites and other self-published sources like Acharya S as a Christ myth theorist. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I think you are getting bogged down in the different meanings of "myth" which has been discussed before. As Remsburg said back 1909 you have historical myth and pure myth. To use more modern examples Custer's Battle at the Little Big Horn is a historical myth--it undoubtedly happened but the reasons it happened have been reinterpretated from They Died With their Boots on to Little Big Man to Son of the Morning Star. Conversely Washington's cutting down of a cherry tree is a pure myth. Does this help clarify things?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So, I think it would be cool if someone came to this article and they could quickly be brought up to speed on all that we've just talked about. Right now, a reader still has to spend 10-30 minutes to figure out what's going on, and they'll have to rely on their own reasoning, instead of us spelling it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

True but look at who we start with: Volney and Dupuis. They are presented as "The primary forerunners of the nonhistoricity hypothesis" (using Schweitzer 2001, p. 355; Weaver 1999, p. 45) but only Dupuis actually held to to what would be called the Christ Myth Theory while Volney was "allowing that confused memories of an obscure historical figure may have contributed to Christianity when they were integrated with the solar mythology." (cited via Journal of the History of Ideas (University of Pennsylvania Press)).

Going back to the source material here is what Schweitzer and Weaver say on the matter:

"The great forefunners of the theory that Jesus is a mythical figure are generally considered to be Charles François Dupuis (1742-1809) and Constantin-François Volney (1757-1820). Both advocate the view that the Gospels present a myth of a predominantly astral nature, just as they see all stories about gods as arising ultimately out of events on the natural world and that of the stars." (Schweitzer)

"Of course, it is also true that this questioning of the very existence of Jesus as a historical figure was not really new, having gone back as far at least as the eighteenth-century Frenchmen Charles Francois Dunpuis and Constantin-François Volney, and wound its way down through Bruno Buarer and Albert Kalthoff, as Schweitzer had originally described and, in his greatly expanded second edition, had more extensively discussed." (Weaver)

On page 357 Schweitzer reiterates "Dupuis and Volney, the earliest to contest the existence of Jesus, were exponents of the exclusively mythical interpretation. The first to develop a full explanation of the symbolic was Bruno Bauer. Kalthoff adopted it form him. Loman too professed this belief, in so far as he too assumed that the synoptic tradition was not historical."

What is not clear is what Volney meant by "obscure historical figure" nor how that position would allow him to be classified as an exponent of an "exclusively mythical interpretation". Some clarification on this matter would help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience guys. I have failed dismally to explain my concerns with the definition, so shall now drop it. Again, your patience has been amazing. Anthony (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Remsburg

Remsburg's list has not actually been influential in "top-tier" mythicism. His list of non-mentions isn't mentioned in any of the secondary literature on the topic and, even within the CMT community, the only author who appears in this article who alludes to his work is D. M. Murdock. Given that Murdock's mere inclusion in this article is itself hanging on by a thread (NB), this isn't nearly enough to justify referring to Remsburg. I've removed the allusions to him as a result.

AT LEAST FOUR SCHOLARLY MENTIONS OF REMSBURG: I am sorry, but you are wrong, Eugene. How can you possibly make the claim that the list "isn't mentioned in any of the secondary literature on the topic" -- have you read every single book on the subject? Clearly there are at least FOUR you haven't read. (1) Asher Norman, Twenty-Six Reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus, page 184. Norman exactly repeats Remsburg's list, while correcting two errors of Remsburg. (2) Remsburg's list is also included in World Transformation: A Guide to Personal Growth and Consciousness by Jawara D. King, p. 35. (3) Remsburg is mentioned and his list is given in "Did Jesus Even Exist?" by Frank R. Zindler, The American Atheist, Summer 1998. (4) Remsburg's article is reprinted in Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography (1978). As per this talk page, I will restore the Remsburg reference. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NB: The consensus threshold for mere inclusion in this article as a mythicist is "3 scholarly mentions specifically connected to an advocate's CMT advocacy". Murdock is referred to in a scholarly book by Clinton Bennett, in a popular-level book co-authored by Daniel B. Wallace, and then by a book review by Robert M. Price that appeared in the magazine Free Inquiry. Eugene (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that Murdock is a self-published source and therefore does not fit Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before Remsburg's List is popular with the non-scholar crowd being sited by the likes of James Patrick Holding, Hilton Hotema, Jawara D. King, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, and Asher Norman as well as about 200 blogs that debate how useful it is. To this list I also add Lena Einhorn (2003), M. M. Ninan (2007)

The Christ is an important freethought book (Brown, Marshall G.; Gordon Stein (1978). Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography. Published by Greenwood Press, University of California. pp. 52) so some mention of the use (or rather abuse) Remsburg should be made.

I should mention that Remsburg what quite clear on his position (in the chapter ironically called "Christ's Real Existence Impossible"): "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist." The whole focus of The Christ was not to show that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist but that Jesus of Bethlehem aka the Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist. He reiterates this in Chapter 6, "The Crucifixion of Christ": "Every line of these accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Christ bears the ineffaceable stamp of fiction. There was no Christ to crucify, and Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, was not crucified as claimed."

Also Remsburg stated "The conceptions regarding the nature and character of Christ, and the value of the Christian Scriptures as historical evidence, are many, chief of which are the following

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

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

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

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

This is basically an inversion of the same list Boyd gave us in Jesus Legend pgs 24-25 nearly a century later. It is clear that Remsburg put himself in category #3 - ie yes there was a Jesus but there is nothing we can say about him. But to say his list represents the CTM is a distortion as Remsburg never argued that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AT LEAST FOUR SCHOLARLY MENTIONS OF REMSBURG: (1) Asher Norman, Twenty-Six Reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus, page 184. Norman exactly repeats Remsburg's list, while correcting two errors of Remsburg. (2) Remsburg's list is also included in World Transformation: A Guide to Personal Growth and Consciousness by Jawara D. King, p. 35. (3) Remsburg is mentioned and his list is given in "Did Jesus Even Exist?" by Frank R. Zindler, The American Atheist, Summer 1998. (4) Remsburg's article is reprinted in Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography (1978). Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those references qualify as "scholarly". Zindler, for instance, is not a scholar of New Testament, but a biologist, or as this page has it, a "biology, psychobiology and geology professor." Furthermore, I would guess that not all of these references connect Remsberg's list specifically to the theory of a non-historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a larger problem here, which is that the "consensus threshold" (whose consensus BTW?), of 3 scholarly references is arbitrary and contradicts Wikipedia guidelines: "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." [Reliable sources] This threshold favors the oppositional NPOV by excluding legitimate sources of information and gives an unfair bias towards acceptance of sources that have a religious or faith-based POV. There is no legitimate reason to exclude the Remsburg section based on Wikepedia's criteria of reliable sources. It has relevance to the CMT and has been cited by multiple proponents of the CMT in reliable sources. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't automatically include everything that appears in a reliable source. If we did, Wikipedia articles would be huge and unfocused (admittedly that describes a lot of them anyway). There's a process of selection that goes on in crafting any article. If we included every single person who thought that there was no historical Jesus in this article we'd have hundreds of people to mention, and the article would be nothing more than a list. So we discuss the most notable proponents, the ones who have been discussed in the academic literature on this subject. Remsberg doesn't appear in that literature.

Also, look more closely at the sources cited here. If you took them to the reliable sources noticeboard, I would wager that some of them, perhaps all, would be rejected as reliable sources on this topic. Zindler is far from an expert on ancient history or new testament, and World Transformation: A Guide to Personal Growth and Consciousness is self-published. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that back when we have a much longer section on Remsburg (I put it in but was not happy with it see Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_19#Remsberg) there was an effort to find any scholarly references connecting Remsburg and the Christ Myth Theory and the results were pretty much a big goose egg. I will disagree with Akhilleus on the matter of Remsburg not being in the article simple because he is used (or rather misused) by a sizable amount of the non scholarly crowd. Remsburg should be in the article if only to clarify that he did not hold to the Jesus never existed idea but his work is used by those who do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Verification requested

The Christ myth theory has often been advanced for self-consciously anti-religious reasons and is today largely the purview of committed atheists. (Van Voorst 2003, p. 660; Stark 2007, p. 284)

Per WP:V, I would like to see the material supporting this claim. I would also like to know what "self-consciously anti-religious reasons" means and how it could possibly be encyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Wells and others advanced the nonexistence hypothesis not for objective scholarly reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form." (Van Voorst 2003, p. 660)

"Hence, today only dedicated atheist writers cling to the notion that Jesus never existed." (Stark 2007, p. 284)

Q.E.D. Any more? Eugene (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're citing an opinion of an author but you are stating it as fact. That's not accurate. Please attribute appropriately per WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not citing an opinion; I'm citing factual statements made by academic specialists. Eugene (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind both the quotes above can be demonstrated to be WRONG via Tom Harpur. I have pointed out before that I have seen atheists say there was a historical Jesus and Deists that say there wasn't. The connection just isn't there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruce is both right and wrong here. Right, in that there are theists and Christians who espouse the CMT (Robert Price is one); wrong, in that there are others who espouse the CMT because they believe it supports atheism. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, does Price self-identify as a theist? I was under the impression that he regarded himself as an atheist. Bruce, the statement in the article is "The Christ myth theory has often been advanced for self-consciously anti-religious reasons and is today largely the purview of committed atheists." Given the lack of absolutes, Tom Harpur's membership in the club doesn't disprove anything; generally speaking the CMT is an atheist hobby horse--as the surveys in the article and the reliable sources show. Eugene (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On p. 56 of The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Price writes "In all this time, while I gladly admit I wrote with some indignation against what Albert Schweitzer called 'the twisted and fragile thinking of apologetics,' I have never come to disdain Christianity. Indeed, I was for half a dozen years pastor of a Baptist church and am now a happy Episcopalian. I rejoice to take the Eucharist every week and to sing the great hymns of the faith. For me the Christ of faith has all the more importance since I think it most probable that there was never any other." (This is worth putting in the article and in Robert M. Price, right?) The Historical Jesus: Five Views is cited a few times in our article, but it's worth using more widely, because it provides a very recent example of the definition of "Christ myth theory" that matches our article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that Price attends an Episcopalian church and that he was a fundamentalist Baptist earlier in his life. I was just curious if he had returned to theism since, for a while there at least, he was fond of describing himself as a "Christian atheist". As for making some mention of Price's religious history in his section, I don't have a problem with that. But let's not just reproduce his own wikipedia article in micro here. Not every author needs a biography, just the facts that relate to their CMT advocacy. Eugene (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't aware of the "Christian atheist" description. I have no idea whether there was a time when he was a thorough atheist; "Christian atheist" is an intentional paradox, of course, so I wouldn't take that as a simple turn away from theism. I agree that this article doesn't need to reproduce every figure's biography, but a short bit of text that says that Price attends church regularly is worth including here, I think, because it nicely demonstrates that the CMT isn't necessarily linked to atheism, and that agreeing with it need not entail the destruction of Christianity (as some talk page commenters seem to assume sometimes). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Price's religious affiliation: "I still have no religious beliefs; I just benefit from the drama of the liturgy of the Episcopal Church." -from a column by Robert Price

As for the implications of the CMT for orthodox Christianity (if it were true), I don't think we can simply brush aside the idea that it would be a serious problem for conventional Christianity (this may be the one place where Bruce and I agree); RSes think that it would be:

• "And if Jesus never existed, or if he was quite different from what the Gospels and the church's worship affirms him to have been, then we are indeed living in cloud-cuckoo-land." -from The Challenge of Jesus (InterVarsity, 1999) by [N. T. Wright.

• "This would be the equivalent to showing Christians that Jesus never existed, for it would entail the complete nullity of the claims and practices of the religion." -from Buddhist Thought (Routledge, 2000) by Paul Williams & Anthony Tribe

• "Theology and history for instance overlap, so that a historical proof that Jesus never existed would refute Christianity" -from On Christian Belief (Routledge, 2004) by Andrew Collier

• "They [Wells, etc.] have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would put an end to Christianity as it is known..." -from "Non-existence Hypothesis", Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture (ABC-CLIO, 2003) by Robert Van Voorst

Given these and the other RSes used in the section, I think that the "Atheist polemics" section should remain a distinct section outside of a specific historical context. This, of course, doesn't mean that the CMT hasn't been advanced by religious people (see "Christian apologetics"), but the anti-religious usage is nevertheless a notable (perhaps the single most notable) use to which the theory has been put. But if someone can track down the sources neccesary to put a section together on culturally contingent archetypical pantheism/panentheism (al a Drews, Freke & Gandy, Harpur, and Murdock) that doesn't trip over OR and SYN issues, I think that'd be a great addition to the ideological uses section too. Eugene (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Christ myth theory has also been advanced by anti-religious independent movies such as Zeitgeist and The God Who Wasn't There, along with the feature film Religulous, which discusses the theory in some detail. (O'Dwyer 2007; Soukup 2005, p. 97; O'Neil 2008)

"Anti-religious independent movies"? This is a neutral, encyclopedic statement of fact? These films are critical of Christianity, but can we say more than that? No, I don't think we can. "Anti-religious" is not a term that even comes into play. Just because someone is critical of Christianity, does not mean they are "anti-religious". Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you would prefer "anti-Christian" to "anti-religious" I wouldn't object. Eugene (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of preference. Those sources are neither "anti-religious" nor "anti-Christian". They are, on the other hand, critical of Christianity. Please be careful of the language that you use. I may be wrong about Zeitgeist, as that could possibly be seen as anti-religious, I'm not sure. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be said that Zeitgeist uses the long discredited solar myth origin tack as the December 25 date wasn't added until the 4th century--long after a quasi Canon had been established.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is a terrible film and I think we can all agree on that point. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Terrible" is being generous with regards with Zeitgeist as it totally butchers Egyptian mythology. For example, Osiris not Horus was Egyptian deity to die and be brought back and about everything related regarding Horus is so wrong that it is not funny. In the actual myth (accounted in David Macaulay's Pyramid (1988)) Osiris was killed by his brother Set and brought back by his wife Isis and their son Horus was conceived after. David Macaulay's Pyramid states that the Pharaoh was regarded as Horus on Earth and when he died he became Osiris with the next pharaoh becoming the new Horus. So instead of a death-resurrection story you have something more in line with the New Year concept of an old king stepping down (becoming Osiris) and a new one taking his place (becoming Horus on Earth). The God Who Wasn't There also delves into the Solar deity nonsense but it at least it is a little more respective of its source material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I want my two hours back. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Horus becomes Jesus solar myth stuff was so bad I never made it through the rest of the film so I saved some time there. Remsburg's list appears here and is even cited in the credits at their website but again Remsburg's intention was not to show there wasn't a historical Jesus but rather that the Gospel account was not trustworthy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem less inclined to "defend" Zeitgeist against being labeled "anti-religious", I'll focus only on The God Who Wasn't There. I imagine that quoting Christian reviewers to the effect that the movie is "anti-religious" will get me nowhere (because of their cooties), so I'll try a different approach. Richard Dawkins refers to the film in his book The God Delusion; he doesn't say that it's merely "critical of Christianity", rather he describes the movie as "a sincere and moving film advocating atheism". So, how does it "advocate atheism"? Does it present a positive case for the conceptual truth of scientific materialism, attempting to demonstrate that our experience is best accounted for by metaphysical naturalism? Well, not quite. As the film's official web page states:

"Bowling for Columbine did it to the gun culture.

Super Size Me did it to fast food.

Now The God Who Wasn't There does it to religion."

...

"From exposing the hidden history of Christianity to lampooning the bloody excesses of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (which caused Gibson to attempt legal action against the documentary), The God Who Wasn't There pulls no punches."

...

"'The Atheists.' This lively track features evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). Topics discussed by this towering atheist figure range from the horrors committed in the name of God to the power of science to combat 'religion and all other forms of superstition.' Relevant audio from other interviewees is also woven into this timely and candid examination of irrational beliefs."

That should be enough. The description "anti-religious" is more than justified. Eugene (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, atheism and "anti-religious" don't always go together. Thomas Paine was highly critical of religion in general and Christianity in particular in Age of Reason but clearly stated in Of The Religion of Deism Compared With the Christian Religion "Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a Deist in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed." Paine was rabidly "anti-religious" but he was a Deist not an atheist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly the case that atheism and "anti-religious" don't always go together, but in the specific case of the two films in question (which is the topic here) they do. Eugene (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How should Price's section be structured?

Let's tackle another isssue that's on the list: Price's section.

I think his section is reasonably good as it stands but there are some things that could be changed: (1) It seems a bit redundant, referring to his agnosticism over and over in different ways, (2) it includes a citation which refers to probably one of the weakest RSes in the entire article--a book by Douglas A. Jacoby (his doctorate isn't a research doctorate) published by the not quite scholarly Harvest House (though it's only used to source a quote by Price), and (3) Akhilleus (and SV, I think) would like to see some mention of Price's shifting religious views.

Any opinions? Eugene (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Doctor of Ministry is a "research" doctorate and I might ask what purpose would adding "Price's shifting religious views" serve?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the shifting views. On the D.Min though, it's not a research doctorate (like a PhD or a ThD); it's what's called a "practitioners doctorate" (like a Psy.D). There's no dissertaton involved in earning a D.Min and its course work generally focuses on some aspect of practical ministry like preaching, pastoral counseling, or the like. It's a fine degree, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really qualify the bearer to speak as a scholar on theoretical matters. Eugene (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag again

It is a running problem on this page that Eugene and Bill constantly remove the POV tag. Several people here have agreed that it's appropriate for a number of reasons, none of them resolved that I can see. I've listed my objections many times, including no dissenting voice in the lead, and the inclusion of any pseudohistory or other smears. Bill, I notice when Eugene was away you left the tag in place, but as soon as he's back and removes it, you follow suit. That's a poor show. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, SV, it seems like you're trolling. Please stop and instead try to make constructive suggestions on improving the article. Thank you for your understanding. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who spends 16% of their time editing articles.[1] I would like to point out that there is something very strange going on with these two accounts. It appears to be a coordinated effort of some kind. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, what could it possibly mean? You know, we are not Anunnaki. Play spooky music here. We...I mean...they, the Anunnaki, just might feel threatened by the power of Wikipedia in general, and this article in particular so we...I mean they...are doing their best to mold everyone's opinion to suit their own evil ends. Play more spooky music here. ROFLMAO. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen no hint of collusion. They just concur. But both seem actually unable to recognize there is genuine concern about the neutrality of the article's tone. Anthony (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of colllusion. The Bill the Cat 7 account is a meatpuppet/tag team warrior for Eugene. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Bill, but speaking for myself I've found the POV tag gratuitous and unserious since the last three seperate times (I think) that it's been added the reasons behind it have sooner or later been exposed as less than compelling. Take a look at the talk surrounding Sophia's attempt, then look at SlimVirgin's attempt, then recongnize (Anthony, I'm looking in your general direction here) that PeaceLoveHarmony (the most recent initiator of this issue) refuses to concede even that the CMT is fringe [2] and thinks that the consensus threshold for inclusion is a plot of some sort to undermine the subject [3]. As for SV's claim that those favoring the POV tag have set for their specific concerns, let's take a look at those concerns: The article...

1. presents a weak straw-man version of the CMT
2. provides very limited elaboration of the evidence for the theory
3. has a much larger amount of material focused on arguments against the theory
4. focuses too much on the history of the ideas and the people associated with the theory, instead of the theory itself
5. states that most scholars regard the CMT arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship but we don't have a source that uses the precise phrase with reference to "most scholars"
6. refers to Edwin Johnson's denial not only a historical Jesus but much of recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well and this "ad hominem" and not an argument
7. refers to Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel's "pillar passages" in a way that is redundant
8. quotes Joseph Klausner but the quote is "redundant waffle"
9. says that evidence for a pre-Christian cult of Joshua was "supposedly" found in such and such phenomena
10. says that Drews work proved popular "enough"
11. says that Robert M. Price has "sought to" represent the thesis
12. quotes James D. G. Dunn's take on Price's take on the epistles and isn't itself an argument
13. quotes a statement from Fredriksen which is not an arguement
14. includes no dissenting voice in the lead
15. includes a reference to "pseudohistory or other smears"

Concerns 4, 7, 8 and 11 seem to be totally unrelated to POV; they may stand correction, but semantic redundancy, while irksome, isn't generally biased. Concern 1 has been slapped down by RSes over and over again, it's not a credible concern. Concern 6 seems a little odd; accurately describing Johnson's views about history and its limitations is hardly "ad hominem". Likewise, concerns 12 & 13 don't seem to be POV issues; that certain statements may not be arguements, and that such non-arguments may not be helpful, doesn't automatically make them biased. 9 & 10 seem mostly innocuous (I think this level of sensitivity demonstrates just how artificially high a standard this article is being held to) but if Anthony is adamant I wouldn't oppose minor word changes at these points. Concern 14 led to a RfC a while back and, despite SV's odd appeal to WikiProject Atheism and her odd non-appeal to Wikiproject Christianity, the RfC was overwhelmingly opposed to including a dissenting voice in the lead; SV, please drop this WP:STICK.

That shrinks the initially formidable list to just 2, 3, 5, and 15. Concerns 5 and 15 are basically the same (unless SV is bucking WP:V and just opposes the "smears" no matter how well sourced they are), so really that just leaves 2, 3, and 5. On 5, really Anthony, let this go. You've tried to build consensus on this several times and never succeeded. If you really want to report exactly what the sources say I wouldn't oppose replacing the bit about pseduoscholarship with a phrase to the effect that "most scholars regard the CMT as unworthy of any response, on par with claims that the Holocaust never happened or that the moon landing was faked in a Hollywood studio". Since that's what McClymond actually say it would be less liable to tedious charges of OR or SYN. But perhaps the more general "pseudoscholarship" is more encyclopedic, less contentious over all, and sufficiently tied in to the sources to pass inspection.

On 2, I agree, if someone would expand the section on the arguements in favor of the theory, that would be helpful. As for 3, I also sort of agree; the arguments against section should be roughly the same length as the arguments for. We can expand the one or we can condense the other. In any event, even with issues 2 and 3, I don't think that the POV tag is really justified; the problems just aren't serious enough to warrent what's essentially being used as a badge of shame while we iron out the two legit issues. Eugene (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Who, me? Eugene has made a good case for CMT being fringe, PeaceLoveHarmony. The only thing that would change my mind on that would be proof that it is only fringe among Christian scholars. But his list seems to contain a number of atheist or disinterested historians. (It may be reasonable to call it pseudoscholarship, too. But I'm still uncertain about that.) About a month ago Eugene, I and a couple of others discussed the question of who to include from the pro CMT camp. While the bar can be set quite high for opponents, because there are so many in mainstream history and NT studies, it needs to be a lot lower for proponents, as there are so few. But there needs to be a bar somewhere. Eugene proposed what I thought were reasonable parameters of notability. I'm sure Eugene can point you to the discussion. (I haven't read all of the above post yet; just responding to these since I felt Eugene staring at me.) Anthony (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene removed the tag again, and I added it back per Talk:Christ_myth_theory#WP:POV_issues_and_WP:OWN_problems. Have the problems raised in that section been resolved? It is not up to Eugene to make this decision. According to statements in that section, eight editors raised concerns with POV and OR in a May 10 GAR which delisted the article. As the primary editor to this delisted article with 525 edits, Eugene needs to take a step back. It is also important to point out, that out of the many editors who voted to delist, only two voted to keep listed: Eugene and Bill the Cat 7. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not being entirely forth-right, Viriditas. You say that the GAR sided against the article's neutrality. That's mostly true (some of the delist votes stemmed from instability), but changes were made in the midst of that discussion and immediately after it that render moot much of the criticism found there. Also, when you say that only Bill and I opposed delisting the article, you fail to mention that, as a result of the changes made in the midst of the GAR, Geometry guy also indicated that the article should retain its GA status. So why the subterfuge?

Also, as is so often the case, much of the GAR criticism that was directed at this article was vague, counter-factual, and even prejudicial ([4] and [5], then [6]. As for the more tangible objections which are currently being leveled at the article, I've reproduced them above in a list. As I've said, only 2 or 3 of them are in any way substantive as POV concerns. If you think that the section on the CMT arguments should be fuller then add the information. Instead of just joining this article's inexhausitibly malecontent peanut gallery, man-up (or "woman-up", as the case may be) and do some actual high-quality encyclopedic work.

(Eugene strides confidently away from the podium to thunderous applause.) Eugene (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You failed to address my question about the issues that resulted in this article being delisted from the GAR. Please address that issue directly. FYI, Geometry guy did not vote to list or delist, but simply made a comment indicating that the GAR be closed as "no action". Khoikhoi closed the discussion as "delist", noting "POV issues have not yet been resolved, and there are WP:OWN problems". There were 8 delists and 2 lists, with you and Bill the Cat 7 voting alone on the issue. Calling this "subterfuge" on my part, reveals that you have some outstanding issues that cannot be adequately addressed on this site. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about a thunderous applaud, but I do agree the POV concerns are not well articulated. Having Martin in the lead was rejected by most independent commentators, so how exactly can that issue be resolved? But even before talking about anything else, what are these concerns about a straw-man definition? SV, Bruce, Sophia, PLH, or whoever is complaining, please, what would would a real definition look like then? Vesal (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add that a NPOV tag cannot be used because an editor simply disagrees with a whole host of verifiable reliable sources. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The GAR review shows that there are problems with the POV in this article. Have those problems been addressed? Will the article pass another GAR? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The GAR review is academic at this point. Consider what Akhilleus said above (to PLH, not directly to you):

PLH, this really won't do. The POV tag must relate to an active, ongoing dispute on the article with discussion on the talk page. Links to archived discussions don't constitute active, ongoing discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, at this point we are only quibbling about how to best represent various issues in the article. There is no reason for a NPOV tag. I am now removing it. If I'm mistaken, then please add it back in. But if it's added back in by whomever, then I request that a detailed explanation be given on this talk page, in order that objections can be noted, discussed, and ultimately end up in a FAQ (if necessary) to prevent future, similar objections. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asked not to remove it until all concerns have been addressed. Please address my concerns above. Will the current article pass a GAR? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about GAR? Viriditas, if you have concerns with the NPOV of this article, could you please spell them out? I don't see that you've explained on this page what you think the problems are (please correct me if I'm wrong), and pointing to an archived GAR doesn't strike me as a helpful way to proceed. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, you should care very much about the GAR, Akhilleus, because we are here to improve articles, not to promote ideas or ideologies. I've pointed to several discussions above, and I've asked the major players to tell me whether these concerns have been addressed. Is there a reason I have not received an answer? Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't care about the entire GA process, because I don't think it does much to improve articles. The reason that you haven't gotten an answer to your questions (from me, anyway) is because I don't even understand what your concerns are. If you take the time to spell them out, I'll try to see what I can do. As far as I can see, you're only pointing to the GAR discussion, where I think you didn't participate (please correct me if I'm wrong). So I'd like to know what specific concerns you have with the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

specifics

I'm concerned with every statement in the entire article. I'm seeing cherry picking, poor use of sources, deliberate skewing of opinion, failure to attribute claimants, etc. There are too many examples, and the entire article needs to be gutted and rewritten, but I'll give you three for illustration: In the atheist polemics section, the first sentence starts out with the claim that atheists advance the Christ myth theory for "self-consciously anti-religious reasons". Putting aside the unusual, unencyclopedic, non-neutral wording for the moment, this statement is sourced to Robert E. Van Voorst, professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary. If this is Voorst's opinion, it should be attributed as such, rather than stated as fact. The section goes on to quote a small, unsourced personal footnote from a paper written by Craig A. Evans, professor of New Testament and director of the graduate program at Acadia Divinity College. Ignoring the content of Evans' paper, this almost unnoticed footnote claims that the Christ myth theory "was picked up by Karl Marx and became the official view of Marxism". However, there is no source in Evans' paper that supports this bold statement, and we can see how this almost invisible footnote was used to associate proponents of the theory with Marxism. The footnote appears after this statement in Evans' paper: "For two generations or so this radical view was treated seriously in most major German universities, though it never came close to being the dominant view among scholars." So why does the footnote appear as content instead? Moving on, the next statement says that the CMT was "promulgated in both Soviet and Maoist literature" and this is sourced to Michael James McClymond, associate professor in Theological Studies at Saint Louis University. There is no page number listed, however, looking at the source, we find related content on p. 24[7] (you're welcome), but again, the claim that this is found in Soviet and Maoist literature is repeated, just like in Evans, unsourced. Perhaps it would be better to find neutral historians who can point to actual Soviet and Maoist literature, rather than repeat the same claim without any primary reference point. But the fact is, this was included as red-baiting, painting anyone who discusses the theory as a "godless communist". The article is saturated with this POV. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(Viriditas, despite you shrill claims to the contrary, the page number for the McClymond book citation has always been there. [8] Eugene (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for naming some specific points. The latter two seem to be largely problems of attribution. The point that the CMT was an official Soviet position is made by several sources; one is Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament pp. 9-10: "Perhaps Bauer's most important legacy is indirectly related to his biblical scholarship. When the Prussian government removed him from his Berlin University post in 1839 for his views, this further radicalized one of his students, Karl Marx. Marx would incorporate Bauer's ideas of the mythical origins of Jesus into his ideology, and official Soviet literature and other Communist propaganda later spread this claim." Several sources are listed in a footnote on the last sentence, including Zvi Rosen, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx (The Hague 1977), K.L. Clarkson and D.J. Hawkin, "Marx on Religion: The Influence of Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Feuerbach on His Thought," SJT 31 (1978) 533-55. The relationship between Bauer and Marx has been discussed a few times on the talk page (hopefully the relationship between Marx and the Soviet Union is clear enough).

I think I've said before that I'm not a big fan of the "Atheist polemics" section as it stands, and I've proposed rewriting it so it focuses on uses of the CMT in New Atheism. I'd be happy to get rid of "self-consciously anti-religious reasons"; some proponents of the CMT were/are religious, a point which often gets missed on this talk page. If a particular advocate was motivated by anti-religious reasons, it would be better to attribute those motives to that particular person, rather than all proponents of the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone investigate this and show how it is an important historical event? In other words, how were Bauer's ideas used by Marx, and where did it actually arise? My understanding is that this a very minor point, and should probably not even appear in this article. If it was important, however, it should be very easy to find a non-theological scholar who has written about Marx and the CMT, considering the voluminous published criticism related to Marx. The "red" flag here, is that we only find theologians harping on this tune, without even referring to other historians or their works. Something isn't right here. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, when you disputed that the CMT was a fringe theory I suspected I would have a hard time taking your critcisms seriously. Now that you dispute the notability of the CMT/Marxism connection my misgivings are only confirmed and magnified. On the scholarly level, the CMT was almost the wholly owned property of the Second World from about 1920 onward to the collapse of the Soviet Union. If this fact isn't notable, nothing is. And considering the statement linking Marxism and the CMT is sourced with a peer-reviewed academic journal, that should be more than sufficient. Eugene (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you are still making stuff up as before, and as that it appears to be your style, I have very little to say to you. I will say that I have never "disputed that the CMT was a fringe theory" nor is that my reason for posting here. I have disputed your use of sources and content from those sources. The statement linking atheism with Marxism and the CMT is not sourced in any of the sources you listed above. In one, it was a small footnote representing the opinion of the author, in another it was an unsourced claim made by the author. Do you understand how to write encyclopedic material and use sources? You drew a link between atheism, Marxism, and the CMT where none could be reasonably shown to be found or supported, and you did this while standing on your soapbox of Christian apologetics. The article was rightly delisted and I don't see that situation changing anytime in the future. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, you said to Eugene, "...I have very little to say to you". Can you please extend that benefit to me too? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why so hostile, my friend? 35 pages of discussion archives with no improvement to FA? Why not? Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that Viriditas, I got you and PLH mixed up. After a while the tendentious critics of this article start to blur together. As for why the article has 35 pages of discussion and no FA, my only guess is that it is the routine target of fringy POV attempted hijackings for promotional purposes and a number of FA reviewers seem to be inherently distrustful of the academic consensus and thus assume something like this: "It just can't be that fringe! There must be a POV issue here!" As you yourself recently wrote, on the authority of some vague and unsourced intuition, "Something isn't right here." Eugene (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So, is the article ready to go back to GAR? Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairy confident that a conscientious editor from a relevant Wikiproject (E.g. history) would promote this article to GA. The problem is that someone from the peanut gallery would just put in the call for a delist review and then the mobocracy would go to work: not reading the whole thing, not checking sources, making snap assumptions based on previously held incorrect beliefs, objecting to the article because of their own POVs, etc, and it would be delisted again within a couple weeks. I think that the size disparity between the arguments for and agin' should probably be addressed first to possibly prevent this. Eugene (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you're saying it was delisted in error? I can understand your position, considering I just had two images deleted in error. I provided detailed explanations of why the images were necessary, only to have a single user show up and say "does not significantly increase readers understanding of anything", after which an administrator deleted both of them. So, maybe you're right. It's possible that the editors around here are not as qualified as they appear. So, relist it again. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas that the current text on Marxism is crude and insufficient. Two issues need to be kept entirely separate: the Bauer-Feuerbach-Marx connection on the one hand, and the Drews-USSR-China connection on the other. The relationship between Marxism and Soviet thought cannot be taken for granted, actually. Theologians are relevant scholars for this article, but we should not be relying on them when they are writing out of their main fields of scholarly interest and when there is a great deal of scholarship in other fields. The history of Enlightenment thought, the history of 19th century German philosophy, the history of the USSR and that of China are all areas of scholarship in their own right. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, if you think that you can add some helpful nuance to the Marxism issue (based on high-quality reliable sources, of course) please do so. Viriditas, I do think that the article was delisted in error, but given the demographic/ideological realities that prevail at Wikipedia I hesitate to take another crack at GAC/FAC until every last blemish and wrinkle (no matter how small) has been taken care of. The article is like the Wiki-Jackie Robinson; it has to be flawless to even get a hearing since there are so many people hoping that it fails. I fully intend to get it to FA status, but so long as new editors keep coming to the article and raising all kinds of unsupported hell about POV, its chances of success are slim. So we keep plugging away, sourcing every single sentence (and sometimes every single phrase) in the whole article, standardizing the citations, making sure that all the notable sources that don't quite trash the topic are included (hence the inclusion of Zeitgeist despite its obvious limitations, for completeness sake) to the point that the article (I think) outshines every other page in Wikipedia in terms of comprehensiveness and verifiability. Of course there's a Catch-22 involved in this though: as the sourcing grows evermore bullet-proof, the bibliography grows every longer (E.g. sourcing the Marxist stuff to dedicated sociological/historical books will add another 2-5) and then other critics complain about there being too many references. Sigh. Eugene (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On point 5, "that most scholars regard the CMT arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship but we don't have a source that uses the precise phrase with reference to most scholars". Do you have a source that says anything about what most scholars think because it does look like OR. Editors have complied lists of many scholars saying negative things about CMT, from which editors have concluded that most scholars regard CMT as pseudo-scholarship. If that isn't OR what is? I am not saying it is a wrong conclusion but to remind us why we prefer referred studies, how do we know, for example, that the quotes are correct and not out of context? how do we know what fraction of scholars those quoted represent? Again, I am not saying the conclusion is wrong, but it is OR. Find a source that says most scholar dismiss the theory or something like that. This is different from, for example, quoting Grant as saying the theory has again and again been discredited (which incidentally is Grant quoting someone else). It may have again and again been discredited to Grant's satifaction but it is nevertheless logically possible that most scholars do not consider it pseudo-scholarship, whatever that means. E4mmacro (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Several entries in my FAQ comment on the way most scholars (as opposed to some particular scholar) see the theory. Here are just a small few.

• "While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history."

Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233

• "The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church."

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

• "Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio."

Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 23–24

Eugene (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting these sources. One thing we need to be very clear about is which period these writers are talking about. Evans, referring to "Bauer & Co.", may only be talking about the 19th century. Despite Evans' statement I don't think we can so readily assume that Bauer was not in the "scholarly mainstream". Gerrish, on the other hand, may well be dealing with the 20th century. Is the McClymond text an academic one? The title implies it may be popular, and I don't recognise the publisher. I fully accept, by the way, that the CMT as expressed in recent popular writings is pseudoscholarship. My worry about this article is that it conflates writing that was regarded as scholarly when it first appeared and writing that never was. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Despite Evans' statement I don't think we can so readily assume that Bauer was not in the 'scholarly mainstream'." I see that the anti-source mood is picking up steam. In any event, Eerdmans is a publisher that prints academic works and McClymond's specific book here is advertized as a text book by the publisher, was said to give a "comprehensive overview" by Publishers Weekly, was positively reviewed by Booklist, and appears on syllabi at such schools as Boston College, Westmont College, Queen's University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the University of Aberdeen. Eugene (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm no particular fan of FAQs for articles. To-do lists are a better way of building consent. Still, many thanks for your comments. I've had a look at Gerrish. A great source for how Drews was received - not for anything later. We mustn't cherry-pick, because he calls the reception "mixed". It was specifically the historians who looked down with Olympic disdain. Theologians discussed the book in detail. Clearly, Drews' book was received as highly contentious scholarship, not as non-scholarly drivel. And I read elsewhere that it influenced Nietzsche... Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead specifically says

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[2] most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship."

That theologians and philosophers toyed with the implications of the theory as a thought experiment is irrelevant to the verifiability of the above text. Eugene (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Eerdmans is a religious publisher. I'm not sure if it counts as scholarly, could check that out but it's by the way. Looking at McClymond's text in Limited preview, I can see the context of his comments on CMT. The thing that really stands out is that all he is making is a rapid overview in one short paragraph. He doesn't even mention Drews. For his purpose, that is probably fine. But it means that his book is of limited use for this article. I don't think it's an appropriate source for potentially contentious statements, and certainly not as our main source of how various non-existence theses are perceived today. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are setting the bar artificially high. McClymond is a tenured academic publishing a well-reviewed book through a mainstream press which has been used in a variety of university classroom. That's more than adequate to meet WP:IRS. In any event, McClymond's statements are echoed by the other sources included in the footnote and elsewhere--including statements by prominent mythicists themselves:

"[T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected."

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218

and

"It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed."

G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 27

This datum is incontrovertable. Eugene (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct organization

Here's a very quick stab at reorganizing this article to match it's title.]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=366929503&oldid=366921148] Basically, hack it apart and organize it about it's subject, and not the history of the subject. Since I spent about one minute on it, I didn't integrate all the info I removed, but maybe you get the idea I'm aiming at. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If I understand your proposal right, you want a section on definition before the history section? That seems like a good idea; I have noticed that you've said several times the article doesn't do a good job of explaining what the CMT is, and a section at the beginning of the body might help with that. However, there are differences between each person's version of the theory (the essential common point being that they say there was no historical Jesus), so we need to be careful not to construct a monolithic position that effaces those differences. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a CMT scholar at all, but I've formatted a lot WP pages. I feel that a reader should come to this page, and quickly be able to understand what the CMT is. In some way, the variations of the CMT should be what are prominently provided to the reader. Right now it kind of seems like the variations in CMT proponents and then opponents are what are provided. Or something. I'm not super knowledgeable on the subject or even this article, I will admit. It's kind of the like the information is there, but the info and sections aren't organized correctly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I must be missing something; the article already has a section on the definition before the history. What's up? Eugene (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Marx again

The text "was picked up by Karl Marx and became the official view of Marxism" is incredibly sloppy and unencyclopedic. It is cited to authors who are not experts on the development of Marxist thought. It's obvious that Marx was an atheist, but he did not particularly espouse Bauer's theory of Jesus as an amalgam of myths. In fact he said that Bauer and Feuerbach were wasting their time in such speculation. You cannot show that there is a line of transmission from Bauer through Marx to the Russian revolutionaries. For one thing, the Russians didn't have access to all of Marx's writings. In fact they took much of their Marxism from summaries by Engels. And if you want to say that the Soviets picked up Drews's arguments, then that cannot be through Marx and Bauer, because Drews didn't write until after Marx's death. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've found nothing to corroborate the connection between Marx and mythicism, other than vague references to the book, Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx: the influence of Bruno Bauer on Marx's Thought by Zvi Rosen. I haven't looked at this book yet, but I would be astonished if it bore out the assertion that Marx upheld mythicism.Barrett Pashak (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec, 3X !!!)Like I said before, if you want to add some subtlety and nuance, go ahead. If you want to add some new high quality sources, go ahead. As for Bauer, he didn't think that Jesus was an amalgam of myths; he argued the CMT on different lines. And as for Drews, it's entirely plausible that his work was integrated into an already existing Marxist perspective regarding Jesus that was initially grounded in Bauer via Marx. The sources we currently have are RSes and are sufficient for the text as it stands, but if you find better sources that contradict them, then they should be replaced. Eugene (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Van Voorst makes the same comment on the relationship between Bauer's thought and Marx in Jesus Outside the New Testament, pages 9 & 10, and footnotes the statement. I'll get the SJT article tomorrow morning through ATLA; if you have access to any of the cited books it'd be very helpful. Eugene (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In the introduction to Beilby/Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, they say: "While Bauer's Christ-Myth theory has had minimal impact on the scholarly quest, it captured the attention of Karl Marx and became a common feature of Soviet Marxist thought." There's a footnote to the Zvi Rosen book already mentioned here. I agree with Eugene that we have enough sources to retain the Bauer-->Marx-->USSR connection for now; once someone gets ahold of the Rosen book and the SJT article and we see what they say, we can rewrite the text if necessary. (Eugene, if you could send the SJT article to other editors somehow, that would be very helpful.) --Akhilleus (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The point keeps getting missed here. The section is about atheism not Marxism, and the continuing attempt to paint atheists as godless Marxists is transparent. Furthermore, there continues to be zero evidence offered that the CMT was important to both groups, and I recommend deletion of the entire section until someone gets a clue. Please remember what this article is about. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the CMT. Its influence on Soviet thought is an interesting, but minor point. It doesn't belong in the poorly-titled "atheist polemics" section, but in the section on Bruno Bauer, as information on his reception and influence. It merits a sentence, that's all.

I'd be happy to see the entire "atheist polemics" section disappear, or be cut up and put in different places. I don't like its current form, and I do think it contributes to the impression that the article has an axe to grind. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Viriditas, I recognize that the section in question is about atheism's use of the CMT, but that's precisely why the Marxist use is mentioned (with a single sentence). It stands as one subset of atheism which has made use of the CMT and is thus included in the section along with other variants of atheism like the high-brow analyitic philosophical atheism of men like Russell and Martin, the low-brow populist atheism of O'Hare and Barker, and the "New Atheism" of Dawkins and Hitchens.

Akhilleus, how does the section imply axe-grinding? If the sources (and the surveys) say that mainly atheists favor the theory and have often used it in the contest of ideas, why shouldn't the article note this? Eugene (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there is overwhelming agreement that this section is problematic. However, I'm also concerned about recycling the current sources into other places in the article. A personal footnote is not enough for inclusion, and another source simply mentions it in passing with no source to back it up. Please feel free to make the changes you desire so we can see what it looks like. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Um...I'm a bit confused here, because Van Voorst mentions the Bauer-->Marx-->USSR connection, and backs it up with a citation to Zvi Rosen. Are we talking about different things? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of sources like Evans, who doesn't back it up with a citation to Rosen. I hope that clears up the confusion. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, atheism is NOT peripheral to Marxism - rather, atheism is in the core of Marxism. Does that mean that all atheists are inherently Marxists? Of course not. But, historically speaking, the CMT has definitely played a role in the advancement of Marxism (and its offshoots). At any rate, do you really think that anyone is going to take you seriously when you say, "...I recommend deletion of the entire section until someone gets a clue"? That kind of tone would seem to indicate that you don't have a rational argument. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)\

None of which has anything to do with this topic. Please address the topic or refrain from commenting. You say that "CMT has definitely played a role in the advancement of Marxism". Please provide a good neutral source from either a historian or non-theologically oriented scholar who makes that claim. So far, none of the sources offered so far have been able to support with anything other an opinion. But look around the world today as only one example. Which so-called "Marxists" are promoting the CMT or quoting it or pushing it? None of course. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Put hand in front of mouth)...yawn. Webster's definition of "yawn" (as intended here)? "2. to open the mouth wide and take a deep breath usually as an involuntary reaction to fatigue or boredom" (as it were). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, your account seems to be used only for distraction and disruption. Thanks for proving me correct. Still waiting for evidence of an actual connection between CMT, Marxism, and atheism. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone can get hold of the Scottish Journal of Theology paper, that would be helpful. I can't find it in the academic databases, it is too obscure. What I can find online is Zvi Rosen's book, but just in Google snippet view. I can't find anything to search on that would say "Marx inherited the CMT from Bauer". What I did find was this: "Even if the historical Jesus really existed, (something which Bauer once regarded as self-evident and later treated with reservation and eventually with great doubt bordering on denial of the historicity of the..." Eh? bordering on denial - just bordering. And this is supposed to be the prime founder of the whole myth? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What are we trying to establish from this paper as it is only one of the sources referenced by Van Voorst? "For if Marx takes the content of his critique of religion from Bauer—not, as is commonly supposed, from Feuerbach1— then Marx's atheism is of an extremely militant sort. (533) It is a tedious read but I do not believe it makes the case for the CMT specifically as there is no mention of Jesus (except for nuns being the bride of Christ?). --Ari (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, we have tons of sources on Bauer, including a very detailed chapter in Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the historical Jesus. I don't think there's any doubt that Bauer came to think there was no historical Jesus, although he only came to this position in the middle of his career. Schweitzer pp. 139-40: "At the end of his investigation of the Gospels, Bauer is inclined to make the decision on the question whether there ever was a historical Jesus depend on the result of a further investigation which he proposed to make into the Pauline epistles. It was not until ten years later (1850-1851) that he accomplished this task and applied the result in his new edition of the Criticism of the Gospel History. The result is negative: there never was any historical Jesus." --Akhilleus (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly the SJT isn't available through ATLAS... greedy, greedy Cambridge University. I've no intention of spending $30 to buy an article to confirm what is already stated by four different available reliable sources; if someone happens to live near a seminary that has a collection of the SJT, please check for us. WorldCat says that the closest copy of Rosen's book is in Paris, France; pass. That leaves Mah. His book is in a library one town over from me and, if itsmejudith absolutely insists, I suppose I could drive over there and check it out. I'd rather not, but I could. Eugene (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the SJT article. Not word 1 on mythicism. Barrett Pashak (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to share the document in some way? Eugene (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I emailed a copy to Akhilleus. Barrett Pashak (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for sending the article to me. I've taken a preliminary look and I don't think the article supports Van Voorst's claims. In fact, it undermines them somewhat, because the period when Bauer was influential upon Marx was the 1840s, and Bauer only came to the conclusion that Jesus was ahistorical in the 1850s. I want to look at Rosen before I make up my mind about this, but I think the claim that Marx picked up the idea of Jesus' ahistoricity from Bauer is on shaky ground. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to put the sources (both those currently cited and those which could be) together (arrainged chronologically) so we can get a look at them.

• "From B. Bauer [Marx] learnt that Jesus never existed."

Alphonse Mani, "Karl Marx' Critique of Religion", Indian Theological Studies 26, 1989

• "The belief that Jesus never existed was picked up by Marx and Engels and came to be the 'official' view of Marxism."

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993

• "At the end of his life, [Bauer] wrote Christus und die Caesaren (1877, English, 'Christ and Caesar'). In this work Bauer alledged that Seneca and Philo, rather than Jesus and Paul, were the ideological progenitors of Christianity. This latter work, although having little theological influence, appealed to Marx and Engels and was authoritative for socialist, Marxist groups."

F. David Farnell, "Philosophical and Theological Bent of Historical Criticism", in The Jesus Crisis, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998

• "Marx would incorporate Bauer's ideas of the mythical origins of Jesus into his ideology, and official Soviet literature and other Communist propaganda later spread this claim."

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000

• "Bauer had a major historical impact through his student, Karl Marx, who carried Bauer's teaching [on the non-existence of Jesus] into the Communist movement, where it became a part of official Soviet and Maoist literature."

Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004

• "Bauer's greatest influence was on one of his students, Karl Marx, who promoted the view that Jesus never existed."

J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer & Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006

• "While Bauer's Christ-Myth theory has had minimal impact on the scholarly quest, it captured the attention of Karl Marx and became a common feature of Soviet Marxist thought."

James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009

Further, here are some less explicit sources which nevertheless make the connection comprehensible and plausible:

• "With respect to his views on religion, Karl Marx was greatly influenced by Hegel but also by theologians and biblical scholars such as David Strauss (1808-74) and Bruno Bauer (1808-82). ... This perception of the quasi-poetic nature of religion was reinforced by Strauss and Bauer, who showed Marx how to understand biblical literature. In the 1830's, when this idea was relatively new, Strauss and Bauer convinced Marx that the Sacred Scriptures were simply a work of human imagination."

Jude P. Dougherty, The Logic of Religion, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003

• "In this period [I.e. the mid to late 1840s] one finds the most important works of Feuerbach, and the works of his and of Bauer's that most importantly influence Marx..."

Daniel Brudney, Marx's Attempt to Leave Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998

[Bauer published A Critique of the Gospels and a History of their Origin, in which he denied the historicity of Jesus, beginning in 1850 and had toyed with the idea even earlier.]

• "In 1839 even Karl Marx attended Bauer's lectures on Isaiah, and they struck up a friendship. (Bauer visited Marx in London in 1855/56, though by then the two were alienated from each other.) ... Bauer finally denied the historical existence of Jesus. ... While his ideas on Christianity and its origins were mistaken, his influence through Marx and Feuerbach is still felt today."

Hans Schwarz, Theology in a Global Context, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005

[Bauer and Marx were still in contact with one another during the period (post 1850/1) in which Bauer was explicitly denying the historicity of Jesus.] Given the wealth of RSes here, I'm rather surprized that we are indulging in the sort of OR we seem to have conceeded to, setting ourselves up over the secondary literature, taking it upon ourselves to decided if a given scholar is right or not. Further, even if (and I think that's a very big "if") Van Voorst misread his sources in his relevant footnote, that wouldn't undermine the material in this article in the least: we have three different sources (two journal articles and another article from an anthology), published in three different venues, published prior to Van Voorst's book which all make the same claim (not to mention all the works that came after). So even if Van Voorst's no good on this point, I'll just substitute Mani into the footnote and that will be that. The fact of the matter is that we have a huge mass of RSes that say that Marx accepted the CMT, and not a single source that directly contradicts that claim. This should be a non-issue. Eugene (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, the level of discourse on this article is usually so low that I take a dogmatic approach to the use of sources: a reliable source makes a particular claim, no other sources contradict it, the claim should be in the article. Ideally, though, articles are written by editors who have background knowledge of the topic area and can make informed judgments about what the RSes are saying. At the moment, we seem to have a critical mass of people with background knowledge, the ability to conduct research, and the willingness to discuss rationally what the sources say, so let's act like thinking beings rather than stenographers, for once. Our discussion here is indicating that 1) there's nothing in Marx's writings, which are some of the most heavily discussed in the world, that shows that he drew upon Bauer regarding the historicity of Jesus; 2) there's not much evidence that Marx cared about Jesus one way or the other; 3) several works that discuss Bauer's influence on Marx don't discuss the historicity of Jesus at all, but instead concentrate on far more interesting philosophical critiques of Christianity and religion in general; 4) (some of) the sources that Van Voorst cites as evidence for the Bauer-->Marx connection don't mention the historicity of Jesus at all, and therefore don't support his claim. So I think we can safely conclude that Van Voorst and the other sources that say Marx picked up the claim of Jesus' ahistoricity from Bauer aren't corect. Barrett Pashak's characterization of this as a meme is apt—somehow this idea made its way into the scholarship, and became a commonplace that no one bothered to go back and investigate fully. I could still change my mind depending on what I find in the Rosen book, of course, but right now I don't think this claim belongs in the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, very well put. The best scholars can make mistakes, and I think that's all that Van Voorst has done here. In the meantime we have come across the books by Rosen and Thrower, both of which could be useful for the article, so the debate has been useful. Good faith assumed all round, and no harm done. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion makes me a bit uncomfortable. As one of my wiki-heroes once said, "I'm going to defer to an expert ... rather than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor."[9] As much as I respect Akhilleus, if Van Voorst (with his academic PhD, his academic position, and the presumptive ability to do competent research that goes along with those things) says that some particular sources make some particular point (and makes such a statement himself in print), and Akhilleus says that they don't, I'm inclined to defer to Van Voorst. "Ma, Pa, don't make me choose!!" In any event it looks like I better check out that Mah book; I'll take a look this afternoon and scan any pertinent info to share with the group.

I'm curious to hear Akhilleus and Itsmejudith's thoughts though on my earlier point: Even if Van Voorst is confused about his sources, given that we have articles from academic journals that didn't rely on Van Voorst and yet make the exact same claim, then what? Eugene (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have obtained the Rosen book, and perused it. There is nothing in there on mythicism that I can see other that the snippet about Bauer on p. 55. My guess is that Van Voorst did some sloppy work, and Evans and Mani picked up on it. Barrett Pashak (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Evans and Mani wrote before Van Voorst. Eugene (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

See the kind of trouble sloppy work can cause? :)Barrett Pashak (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the SJT article and conceed that it (one of three sources Van Voorst cites) doesn't mention mythicism. I'll get the Mah text in an hour.

Nevertheless, the article does seriously undermine Itsmejudith's (IMJ) "redflag". IMJ said that the idea that Marx would have adopted Bauer's mythicism is inherently incredible (despite such an adoption being mentioned by literally seven different sources, eight if you're feeling generous and want to allow Freke and Gandy to have a say) because, "we can find numerous sources that say that Marx thought that Bauer was wrong to devote himself to the critique of Christianity" so "the onus to verify is upon those who want to include the material" since "WP:REDFLAG says that anything way out of line with what is generally established should be regarded with suspicion."[10] But the SJT article (coauthored by David J. Hawkin, PhD from McMaster University, currently professor at Memorial University and formly the head of the Department of Religious Studies there) paints a very different picture from IMJ...

"Marx's period of study of religion and philosophy corresponds precisely to the period of his friendship with Bruno Bauer"

"In this characterisation, Marx remained true to Bauer: Christianity was irrational; it was indeed, the very expression of irrationality."

"Indeed, from Bauer's letters to Marx, it appears the latter was spending a great deal of time studying religion. Marx was preparing a review of a book by K. P. Fischer entitled Die Idee der Gottheit as well as a critique of Hegel's Religionsphilosophie. But more important, he and Bauer actually planned to edit a journal called Archiv des Atheismus. Finally, Marx probably collaborated with Bauer to produce Die Posaune des jUngsten Gerichts tiber Hegel den Atkeisten und Antichristen. ... In addition, Bauer and Marx planned a sequel to the Posaune, and for his part Marx delved into the study of Christian art."

"This can be seen clearly in the following well-known passage of 1843: 'For Germany, the criticism of religion has been largely completed; and the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism.' Marx is saying in effect that the theoretical critique of religion is necessary and crucial, since man cannot change the world until he rids himself of his illusions about it. In this sense, the religious critique was of vital importance both in itself and as a model for secular illusions. It was the project of the Enlightenment to outline the theoretical critique of religion, and the achievement of the Young Hegelians, especially Bruno Bauer, to complete that task. Under Bauer's tutorship, Marx had studied religion, deemed it both inhuman and irrational, and attacked it theoretically."

"Since [Marx] himself stated '… the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism', it is untenable to argue that he saw his critique of religion as peripheral to the rest of his system. For him, that critique was absolutely necessary and he drew heavily on Bruno Bauer for it."

"[Marx's] writings are literally riddled with his critique of religion"

Now, given this sort of a context, I don't think that there's anything particularly implausible about the idea that Marx would have adopted Bauer's later mythicism--especially considering that Bauer and Marx met in the flesh as late as the mid 1850s when Bauer had come to his ultimate conclusion. As such, I can see no reason to presuppose that Mani (1989), Evans (1993), and Farnell (1998) are mistaken. And thus even if Van Voorst (2000) cited the wrong sources for his assertion, and even if every other later source that says the same thing was channeling Van Voorst, the article can still make the connection on the basis of the three (that's right, three--the threshold for inclusion) reliable sources that associate Marx with mythicism which were published prior to Van Voorst's book. Eugene (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)