Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Recent fringe addition

Regarding this edit:

While I agree that this article need sections on Higgens, Graves, and Massey; there's a lot of WP:UNDUE weight presenting them as having been redeemed by academia (which is not the case), and are all mostly sourced to a fringe book (the article for which is overly promotional). I'm about to leave for work, so I don't really have time to fix this. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As Martijn pointed out just yesterday, we have had a pretty good run here lately with respectful debate and compromise. I like to think that I go further than many contributors to promote NPOV by including counter-arguments and criticisms for most of my new content, and readily self-edit when someone points out a flaw. For example, when I wrote the article on The Pagan Christ, I made sure I included a criticism section that is almost as long as the synopsis itself. Each of the three short paragraphs I posted today on Higgins, Graves and Massey each contain at least one sentence that casts doubt or outright refutes the theories presented.

I also suggest that anyone who chooses to dismiss an author, book, contributor or idea as "fringe" (particularly the best-selling book in Canada in 2004 which was written by a respected former clergyman and New Testament professor) should first read the excellent article by Thomas S. Verenna, The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship.

I look forward to your comments, but perhaps it is worth discussing possible improvements on this Talk page using Bill the Cat's model for consensus before attempting to fix my text or citations. Radath (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - I am skeptical as well about the sections (Massey specifically) as these speculations about roots of a Christ Myth in other mythologies seem to be (IMO) baseless mythologies as well. However, as you see above I've chosen (right or wrong) to "attack" the issue at the top of the page where Radath has put in a very good summation of the article. Currently the 3rd para of that summation is flagged as needing backup citations (beyond The Pagan Christ which appears to me to be a summation of Massey's and other early work w/o the necessary "peeling back the onion" work to ensure that the previous works are rooted in reality). I think "we" are working through those flags at this time. My assumption, which is merely that, is if those items which are flagged go away, then some of the 19th century "scholarship" will either go away or will be extensively rewritten in order to reflect the seeming fact that its fantasy. I also agree with Radath that the Talk page discussions are going well and Radath has been very open to my cumbersome and repeated questions. So please feel free to dive in! Ckruschke (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I have not forgotten my pledge last week to Ckruschke to do some more research on the connections with myths and Old Testament scriptures, and in a few days I hope to propose changes to Key Arguments paragraph 3, as well as an update to the paragraph on Massey that I think will be more acceptable. Before I do though, I want to finish reading some pretty heavy books (pro and con) so I can be confident of my citations. Radath (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent fringe addition

Regarding this edit:

While I agree that this article need sections on Higgens, Graves, and Massey; there's a lot of WP:UNDUE weight presenting them as having been redeemed by academia (which is not the case), and are all mostly sourced to a fringe book (the article for which is overly promotional). I'm about to leave for work, so I don't really have time to fix this. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As Martijn pointed out just yesterday, we have had a pretty good run here lately with respectful debate and compromise. I like to think that I go further than many contributors to promote NPOV by including counter-arguments and criticisms for most of my new content, and readily self-edit when someone points out a flaw. For example, when I wrote the article on The Pagan Christ, I made sure I included a criticism section that is almost as long as the synopsis itself. Each of the three short paragraphs I posted today on Higgins, Graves and Massey each contain at least one sentence that casts doubt or outright refutes the theories presented.

I also suggest that anyone who chooses to dismiss an author, book, contributor or idea as "fringe" (particularly the best-selling book in Canada in 2004 which was written by a respected former clergyman and New Testament professor) should first read the excellent article by Thomas S. Verenna, The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship.

I look forward to your comments, but perhaps it is worth discussing possible improvements on this Talk page using Bill the Cat's model for consensus before attempting to fix my text or citations. Radath (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - I am skeptical as well about the sections (Massey specifically) as these speculations about roots of a Christ Myth in other mythologies seem to be (IMO) baseless mythologies as well. However, as you see above I've chosen (right or wrong) to "attack" the issue at the top of the page where Radath has put in a very good summation of the article. Currently the 3rd para of that summation is flagged as needing backup citations (beyond The Pagan Christ which appears to me to be a summation of Massey's and other early work w/o the necessary "peeling back the onion" work to ensure that the previous works are rooted in reality). I think "we" are working through those flags at this time. My assumption, which is merely that, is if those items which are flagged go away, then some of the 19th century "scholarship" will either go away or will be extensively rewritten in order to reflect the seeming fact that its fantasy. I also agree with Radath that the Talk page discussions are going well and Radath has been very open to my cumbersome and repeated questions. So please feel free to dive in! Ckruschke (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I have not forgotten my pledge last week to Ckruschke to do some more research on the connections with myths and Old Testament scriptures, and in a few days I hope to propose changes to Key Arguments paragraph 3, as well as an update to the paragraph on Massey that I think will be more acceptable. Before I do though, I want to finish reading some pretty heavy books (pro and con) so I can be confident of my citations. Radath (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the section "Arguments from Silence" removed?

There have been very substantial re-writings of this article since I last looked at it months ago, and although I am not a "mythicist" I feel it is not doing a service to WP readers to have no mention of the failure of Philo of Alexandria in his "Embassy to Gaius" to refer to Christ or Christians.That is the one place in surviving contemporary accounts where one might expect a mention of Jesus or Christians, but there is none. There was a good section "Arguments from silence" [1] and also a section "Absence of contemporary evidence" [2] which discussed the lack of archaeological or contemporaneous accounts of Jesus' life or death, but they have been removed, why is that?Smeat75 (talk)

I am not sure who removed what as it was before my time, but looking back at the mass deletions and undo arguments last summer, I can confidently say I am glad to be participating now when we are using this Talk page for constructive cooperation as Martijn Mmeijeri, Ckruschke and others have recently pointed out. With that said, I believe those "Argument of silence" and the "Absence of contemporary evidence" sections are probably too detailed for the article in its current format, and I have instead tried to address those points in Version 3 of the updated Key argument 2 proposed in the previous section. Radath (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the section "Arguments from Silence" removed?

There have been very substantial re-writings of this article since I last looked at it months ago, and although I am not a "mythicist" I feel it is not doing a service to WP readers to have no mention of the failure of Philo of Alexandria in his "Embassy to Gaius" to refer to Christ or Christians.That is the one place in surviving contemporary accounts where one might expect a mention of Jesus or Christians, but there is none. There was a good section "Arguments from silence" [3] and also a section "Absence of contemporary evidence" [4] which discussed the lack of archaeological or contemporaneous accounts of Jesus' life or death, but they have been removed, why is that?Smeat75 (talk)

I am not sure who removed what as it was before my time, but looking back at the mass deletions and undo arguments last summer, I can confidently say I am glad to be participating now when we are using this Talk page for constructive cooperation as Martijn Mmeijeri, Ckruschke and others have recently pointed out. With that said, I believe those "Argument of silence" and the "Absence of contemporary evidence" sections are probably too detailed for the article in its current format, and I have instead tried to address those points in Version 3 of the updated Key argument 2 proposed in the previous section. Radath (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition of CMT

Starting a new subsection because the length issue has been dealt with.

Do we have really any authors who define the CMT as anything that disputes the Jesus-as-Saviour known from the gospels? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily know of. I guess one question there is regarding the line of division between this article and the well-developed Historicity of Jesus article. There is a reasonable question of exactly how to define the differentiation between the content of the two articles, I suppose, and possibly other articles as well, and would definitely welcome some sort of discussion of which material to put in which article, and potentially other related articles as well. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly most authors dispute the supernatural elements in the gospels - the virgin birth, the Three Wise Men and their Star, the massacre of babies, the miracles, the resurrection and the ascension. Even the trials are disputed. The "consensus" allows that a Jesus-type person existed, but not that he was a divine miracle-worker who rose from the dead. We need to see a consensus definition from reliable sources, which after all these years does not seem to exist. Therefore I feel we should persist as is. There is clearly an overlap with the Historical Jesus article, but I think we have dealt with that adequately on both articles already - perhaps just a bit of tweaking is required? Wdford (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The authors I know best don't really use the words CMT, they all just agree that the New Testament cannot be used as historical proof, but their views differ after that (Dawkins says he probably existed, Hitchens concedes some charasmtic rabbi might have existed, Harpur believes he didn't exist, and Thompson concludes it doesn't matter if he existed or not). Radath (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That last point raises the question of the differentiation of the Christ myth, that Jesus was not the anticipated Messiah but rather someone who had those beliefs imposed on him apparently postmortem with stories created to justify it, and the Jesus myth, that even the basic, everyday, activities of the Jesus of the Christian story was artificial or mythic. This page would seem to me, logically, to be the best place to put content relating to the Jesus myth as well, and, maybe, including it as a separate subsection might be best, to the extent that some sort of definition of Jesus myth might be possible as well. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to differentiate between the two complete separate arguments: 1) there was a Jesus of Nazareth physical person, but his reported miracles and the works of God associated with him are myths (Historical Jesus) and 2) not only are the supernatural happenings bunk, but that there wasn't even a physical person named Jesus (CMT). I think Wiki does a good job of making that differentiation. Those of us who watch both pages just need to make sure there is a clear line between the two and that people from outside Wiki who try to add things into the wrong page are directed to the other page as necessary. Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I vaguely remember a previous discussion about whether the article should be called the "Christ Myth Theory" or the "Jesus Myth Theory". We settled on the Christ Myth Theory for a reason - namely that there is very little RS support for a Jesus Myth Theory. However we do already state clearly in the lead that while its broadly accepted that a Jesus existed, only two elements of the gospel story are generally accepted, (and even then the bulk of the detail thereon in the gospels is unsupported). The current interpretation is that Jesus may have existed, but he wasn't the Christ - and this position seems to have lot of RS support. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I imagine if you search through the archive you could find the actual material but it still wouldn't change the impression that not everyone using the term CMT or its equivalent is on the same page...which is likely where some of the confusion is coming from. Another possibility is we have a changing definition can what was called CMT would not qualify as such today.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I get the same feeling. If the sources use the term CMT with different meanings, then we should say so explicitly. If they don't, then this article should restrict itself to describing the theory that there was no historical Jesus at all, not just that the miracles etc are considered mythical accretions onto a historical figure. What counts here is how RS use the term, not whether they agree with it. My impression is that most writers use the CMT in the stronger sense, i.e. what Wdford calls the JMT, though they don't call it that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is assuming you can figure out what the RS says as was true with Michael Grant regarding the Christ Myth theory as a modern form of Docetism...as far as I can tell no one actually agreed on what point he was making there. Then you have people like Doherty saying that Christ Myth theory is that the Gospel Jesus didn't exist citing Wells then current Jesus Myth (1999) as an example...which given Wells was accepting a flesh and blood Jesus being behind the Gospel account causes even more confusion especially when you have RS like Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd basically saying the same thing. Throw in a lot of arguing about what some RS are even saying (with people reading things into the source that simply are not there) and you have a mess (look through the archive for examples of that).--67.42.65.212 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition of CMT

Starting a new subsection because the length issue has been dealt with.

Do we have really any authors who define the CMT as anything that disputes the Jesus-as-Saviour known from the gospels? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily know of. I guess one question there is regarding the line of division between this article and the well-developed Historicity of Jesus article. There is a reasonable question of exactly how to define the differentiation between the content of the two articles, I suppose, and possibly other articles as well, and would definitely welcome some sort of discussion of which material to put in which article, and potentially other related articles as well. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly most authors dispute the supernatural elements in the gospels - the virgin birth, the Three Wise Men and their Star, the massacre of babies, the miracles, the resurrection and the ascension. Even the trials are disputed. The "consensus" allows that a Jesus-type person existed, but not that he was a divine miracle-worker who rose from the dead. We need to see a consensus definition from reliable sources, which after all these years does not seem to exist. Therefore I feel we should persist as is. There is clearly an overlap with the Historical Jesus article, but I think we have dealt with that adequately on both articles already - perhaps just a bit of tweaking is required? Wdford (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The authors I know best don't really use the words CMT, they all just agree that the New Testament cannot be used as historical proof, but their views differ after that (Dawkins says he probably existed, Hitchens concedes some charasmtic rabbi might have existed, Harpur believes he didn't exist, and Thompson concludes it doesn't matter if he existed or not). Radath (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That last point raises the question of the differentiation of the Christ myth, that Jesus was not the anticipated Messiah but rather someone who had those beliefs imposed on him apparently postmortem with stories created to justify it, and the Jesus myth, that even the basic, everyday, activities of the Jesus of the Christian story was artificial or mythic. This page would seem to me, logically, to be the best place to put content relating to the Jesus myth as well, and, maybe, including it as a separate subsection might be best, to the extent that some sort of definition of Jesus myth might be possible as well. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to differentiate between the two complete separate arguments: 1) there was a Jesus of Nazareth physical person, but his reported miracles and the works of God associated with him are myths (Historical Jesus) and 2) not only are the supernatural happenings bunk, but that there wasn't even a physical person named Jesus (CMT). I think Wiki does a good job of making that differentiation. Those of us who watch both pages just need to make sure there is a clear line between the two and that people from outside Wiki who try to add things into the wrong page are directed to the other page as necessary. Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I vaguely remember a previous discussion about whether the article should be called the "Christ Myth Theory" or the "Jesus Myth Theory". We settled on the Christ Myth Theory for a reason - namely that there is very little RS support for a Jesus Myth Theory. However we do already state clearly in the lead that while its broadly accepted that a Jesus existed, only two elements of the gospel story are generally accepted, (and even then the bulk of the detail thereon in the gospels is unsupported). The current interpretation is that Jesus may have existed, but he wasn't the Christ - and this position seems to have lot of RS support. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I imagine if you search through the archive you could find the actual material but it still wouldn't change the impression that not everyone using the term CMT or its equivalent is on the same page...which is likely where some of the confusion is coming from. Another possibility is we have a changing definition can what was called CMT would not qualify as such today.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I get the same feeling. If the sources use the term CMT with different meanings, then we should say so explicitly. If they don't, then this article should restrict itself to describing the theory that there was no historical Jesus at all, not just that the miracles etc are considered mythical accretions onto a historical figure. What counts here is how RS use the term, not whether they agree with it. My impression is that most writers use the CMT in the stronger sense, i.e. what Wdford calls the JMT, though they don't call it that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is assuming you can figure out what the RS says as was true with Michael Grant regarding the Christ Myth theory as a modern form of Docetism...as far as I can tell no one actually agreed on what point he was making there. Then you have people like Doherty saying that Christ Myth theory is that the Gospel Jesus didn't exist citing Wells then current Jesus Myth (1999) as an example...which given Wells was accepting a flesh and blood Jesus being behind the Gospel account causes even more confusion especially when you have RS like Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd basically saying the same thing. Throw in a lot of arguing about what some RS are even saying (with people reading things into the source that simply are not there) and you have a mess (look through the archive for examples of that).--67.42.65.212 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Current State

I've just looked over the current state of this article and I'm seeing a lot of improvement over the—whether intended or not—outright Christian apologist format of the previous versions. Things are looking more neutral here. We seem to be getting closer to drawing out some of the inherent problems with this field; i.e. more material analyzing the apparent Christian exceptionalism so rampant in this field (like [5]) would help it along a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article is much clearer than it was on January 23 when I started coming here:

• short intro lede (reached through compromise) that states the position of CMT proponents, but that CMT is rejected by almost all scholars
• summary of the three main arguments (presented first on this Talk page) with multiple citations and a final rebuttal sentence for each
• summaries of more authors with some criticism thrown in
• links to mythicist books and documentaries
• a hefty criticism section at the end with links to opposing articles
• a friendly and respectful Talk page where we challenge without attacking. Radath (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I disagree with :bloodofox:'s comment that the page was a Christian apologist front previously (I think many "Christian apologists" would say that the page gives too much credence to paganism), I whole-heartedly endorse Radath's comments that the page has been going through an evolutionary process recently through respectful colaboration and friendly dialogue. Considering what the Talk page USED to be like, i.e. the typical strife and drama of most religeon-oriented Wiki Talk pages, this is a monumental turn for the better... Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Comment on Current State

I've just looked over the current state of this article and I'm seeing a lot of improvement over the—whether intended or not—outright Christian apologist format of the previous versions. Things are looking more neutral here. We seem to be getting closer to drawing out some of the inherent problems with this field; i.e. more material analyzing the apparent Christian exceptionalism so rampant in this field (like [6]) would help it along a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article is much clearer than it was on January 23 when I started coming here:

• short intro lede (reached through compromise) that states the position of CMT proponents, but that CMT is rejected by almost all scholars
• summary of the three main arguments (presented first on this Talk page) with multiple citations and a final rebuttal sentence for each
• summaries of more authors with some criticism thrown in
• links to mythicist books and documentaries
• a hefty criticism section at the end with links to opposing articles
• a friendly and respectful Talk page where we challenge without attacking. Radath (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I disagree with :bloodofox:'s comment that the page was a Christian apologist front previously (I think many "Christian apologists" would say that the page gives too much credence to paganism), I whole-heartedly endorse Radath's comments that the page has been going through an evolutionary process recently through respectful colaboration and friendly dialogue. Considering what the Talk page USED to be like, i.e. the typical strife and drama of most religeon-oriented Wiki Talk pages, this is a monumental turn for the better... Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Problems with the section "No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century"

I have been on a wikibreak for several months, I see a lot of discussion on this talk page and in the archives that I have not read all the way through, so forgive me if this has been discussed already. There are numerous problems with the section "No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century", rather than make bold edits I thought it would be better to discuss them here first. The problems begin with the section heading, it should say something like "No mention of Jesus in surviving first century histories" as all but a tiny fragment of the writings from antiquity are lost and not all readers will be aware of that. Then in the body of the text it says " Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century' and this sentence is sourced to Harpur, "The Pagan Christ". I feel the reference to "40 historians" must relate to Remsburg's list, which there was a lengthy discussion about some time ago, see the section "List of 42 authors" in the archives [7]. If this is a reference to Remsburg's list, the authors on it are certainly not all historians. In any case, the statement is incorrect, there are not at least 40 historians whose works survive from the first century who make no mention of Jesus or his miracles. It would really be better, and all that this article needs, just to say " Myth proponents point out that,other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century" and not go into Josephus and Pliny and Tacitus at all as those passages need more discussion than there is really room for here. What is said about those passages at the moment is not right.

"It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period" - no. See Josephus on Jesus, there is not one "brief reference to Jesus" in Josephus, there is one longish passage called the "Testimonium Flavianum", that is the passage that it has often been argued (I would not use the word "speculated" as that carries an implication of guesswork, there are more scholarly grounds for doubting its authenticity than mere speculation) was forged in whole or in part, probably by early church historian Eusebius in the fourth century, not the second. There is another mention, which is indeed brief, in which Josephus refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and that is the one that "myth proponents" speculate, the word "speculate" is appropriate here, really refers to someone other than the Christian figure of Jesus.

The section continues "and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source." This is sourced to the Harpur book, I find it hard to believe it really says that, if it does I must question its value as a source because it is quite ludicrous to suggest that Suetonius, Pliny and the Roman senator Tacitus consulted the gospels and used them as their source, never in years of studying the subject and reading about it have I ever seen such a suggestion before. What "myth proponents" suggest is that those Roman authors were reporting hearsay, it has occasionally been suggested that the Pliny and Tacitus passages are forgeries, but there is very little credence given to those ideas any more. See Pliny the Younger on Christians,Suetonius on Christians and Tacitus on Christ. Also it cannot be stated that those three only wrote 20 lines about Jesus as there are many lost works by all of them and we don't know what the lost works may have said.

So, to recap - I suggest that the section heading be changed to "No mention of Jesus in surviving histories (or records) in early first century" and the section text just says " Myth proponents point out that,other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century." The statement about 40 historians who make no mention of Jesus must be removed. I don't think the sentence "Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period" is really necessary either.

If it is felt that Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius absolutely must be discussed in this article, then I think it should be changed to something like "There are two mentions of Jesus in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100). Proponents of the Christ myth theory suggest that one mention is a forgery and the other refers to someone other than the Christian figure of Jesus. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) make brief mentions of Christ but myth proponents suggest they were merely reporting hearsay", with links to relevant articles.(Pliny the Younger wasn't really a historian, but never mind about that right now).Smeat75 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Smeat75. Before posting the new Key arguments section a few weeks ago, I first posted draft text on this page to get feedback, and although most comments have been quite positive, most of the debate has been about paragraph 3. Using your suggestions, here is the current paragraph 2 and a proposed update. Are you able to supply the missing citations? For example, I seem to recall that in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon suggested Eusebius was a forger, but did he accuse him of forging Josephus? Off to meetings and then out if town, so I can't check Gibbons or Harpur today. Radath (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v1) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period.

Key argument 2 (v2) Lack of historical evidence from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Jesus from any non-Jewish author until the second century. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been an interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Christus, but myth proponents suggest they were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention Jesus by name. Theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew in this period. Radath (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a slightly longer version to address Smeat75's concerns in the next section on this page, but I would not want to see it get any longer. The intention of the Key arguments section is to provide BRIEF summaries of the views of theory proponents followed by a one sentence rebuttal by theory opponents. Can anyone help with the citations? Radath (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v3) Lack of historical evidence from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Christ from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they cite that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 CE. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), a passage that states that Jesus Chrrist had followers and was crucified by Pilate, may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Christus, but myth proponents suggest they may have been forgeries, were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention Jesus by name. Theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Radath (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's much better, thank you, particularly the inclusion of the reference to Philo of Alexandria. The only little quibble I have is that I think it would be better to say "do not mention the name 'Jesus'" rather than "do not mention Jesus by name" in the sentence about Roman historians. I will try to supply some citations in the next day or two. Smeat75 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found citations for the statements that the vast majority of classical literature is lost and that the suggestion has been made by mythicists that the Tacitus passage (by far the most important one of the Roman authors) is merely reporting hearsay and is therefore worthless as historical evidence of Jesus. Would you like to put the revised paragraph in the longer of your versions into the article, Radath, and I will supply the citations where the tags say "citation needed." ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I made some minor edits after re-reading Chapter 2 of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? Last night. for example, when I said the Testimonium Flavianum referred to Jesus Christ, I was using the Wikipedia translation where the actual translation is "the Messiah". As for the last sentence, Ehrman states that Josephus wrote about a number of Jews on page 58, but I kept in the reference from page 44 that little was written about any Jew (or any person for that matter) as that was his argument. As well, I debated adding that Josephus also spoke about other people called Jesus (Ehrman, p. 58), but Ehrman states that the Testimonium and James the Just passages refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" (although Josephus never said Jesus was from Nazareth). Finally, I have changed the last sentence in all three Key arguments to start with "However" so it is clearly presenting the alternate view. I posted v4 on the main page so Smeat75 can add his citations. Radath (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v4) Lack of historical evidence about Jesus from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Christ from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they cite that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 CE. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Chrestus, but myth proponents suggest they may have been forgeries, were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention the name "Jesus". However, theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Radath (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You put in a clause about Josephus mentioning other people named Jesus, Radath, I took it out, it was a very common name at that time, it isn't that important and was turning this paragraph into "why Josephus cannot be believed on anything he says about Jesus" which is not what this paragraph should be about. In any case, that information did not belong before the reference to the Testimonium Flavianum, if it belongs anywhere it should go before the mention of the "brother of Jesus who was called James" passage.Smeat75 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reached when I added the multiple mentions of other people who were called Jesus after I had previously decided against it, and although I agree it might be better in the James sentence, it didn't work well with the verb "speculate" agreed on with Smeat75. At a minimum, the common Jesus name increases the possibility that Josephus could have (before interpolations) been talking about someone like Jesus son of Damneus who was High Priest of Israel. As for the deletion of my addition, I have been making edits on the assumption it was appropriate to "be bold" and add information to an article, but we should avoid deleting someone's properly-sourced text without first discussing on this page as per Bill the Cat's model for consensus. I would like to find a happy compromise, so here is my suggestion for everyone's thoughts:

• Current: There is also speculation the other Josephus reference, that James the Just was the brother of Jesus Christ, was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.
• Proposed: There is also speculation that when Josephus called James the Just the "brother" of Jesus Christ in a later passage, he was referring to another Jesus, a mythic Christ may already have been historicized, or he meant a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Radath (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes, that's fine, the "proposed" version is much better. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the section "No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century"

I have been on a wikibreak for several months, I see a lot of discussion on this talk page and in the archives that I have not read all the way through, so forgive me if this has been discussed already. There are numerous problems with the section "No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century", rather than make bold edits I thought it would be better to discuss them here first. The problems begin with the section heading, it should say something like "No mention of Jesus in surviving first century histories" as all but a tiny fragment of the writings from antiquity are lost and not all readers will be aware of that. Then in the body of the text it says " Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century' and this sentence is sourced to Harpur, "The Pagan Christ". I feel the reference to "40 historians" must relate to Remsburg's list, which there was a lengthy discussion about some time ago, see the section "List of 42 authors" in the archives [8]. If this is a reference to Remsburg's list, the authors on it are certainly not all historians. In any case, the statement is incorrect, there are not at least 40 historians whose works survive from the first century who make no mention of Jesus or his miracles. It would really be better, and all that this article needs, just to say " Myth proponents point out that,other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century" and not go into Josephus and Pliny and Tacitus at all as those passages need more discussion than there is really room for here. What is said about those passages at the moment is not right.

"It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period" - no. See Josephus on Jesus, there is not one "brief reference to Jesus" in Josephus, there is one longish passage called the "Testimonium Flavianum", that is the passage that it has often been argued (I would not use the word "speculated" as that carries an implication of guesswork, there are more scholarly grounds for doubting its authenticity than mere speculation) was forged in whole or in part, probably by early church historian Eusebius in the fourth century, not the second. There is another mention, which is indeed brief, in which Josephus refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and that is the one that "myth proponents" speculate, the word "speculate" is appropriate here, really refers to someone other than the Christian figure of Jesus.

The section continues "and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source." This is sourced to the Harpur book, I find it hard to believe it really says that, if it does I must question its value as a source because it is quite ludicrous to suggest that Suetonius, Pliny and the Roman senator Tacitus consulted the gospels and used them as their source, never in years of studying the subject and reading about it have I ever seen such a suggestion before. What "myth proponents" suggest is that those Roman authors were reporting hearsay, it has occasionally been suggested that the Pliny and Tacitus passages are forgeries, but there is very little credence given to those ideas any more. See Pliny the Younger on Christians,Suetonius on Christians and Tacitus on Christ. Also it cannot be stated that those three only wrote 20 lines about Jesus as there are many lost works by all of them and we don't know what the lost works may have said.

So, to recap - I suggest that the section heading be changed to "No mention of Jesus in surviving histories (or records) in early first century" and the section text just says " Myth proponents point out that,other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century." The statement about 40 historians who make no mention of Jesus must be removed. I don't think the sentence "Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period" is really necessary either.

If it is felt that Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius absolutely must be discussed in this article, then I think it should be changed to something like "There are two mentions of Jesus in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100). Proponents of the Christ myth theory suggest that one mention is a forgery and the other refers to someone other than the Christian figure of Jesus. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) make brief mentions of Christ but myth proponents suggest they were merely reporting hearsay", with links to relevant articles.(Pliny the Younger wasn't really a historian, but never mind about that right now).Smeat75 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Smeat75. Before posting the new Key arguments section a few weeks ago, I first posted draft text on this page to get feedback, and although most comments have been quite positive, most of the debate has been about paragraph 3. Using your suggestions, here is the current paragraph 2 and a proposed update. Are you able to supply the missing citations? For example, I seem to recall that in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon suggested Eusebius was a forger, but did he accuse him of forging Josephus? Off to meetings and then out if town, so I can't check Gibbons or Harpur today. Radath (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v1) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period.

Key argument 2 (v2) Lack of historical evidence from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Jesus from any non-Jewish author until the second century. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been an interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Christus, but myth proponents suggest they were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention Jesus by name. Theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew in this period. Radath (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a slightly longer version to address Smeat75's concerns in the next section on this page, but I would not want to see it get any longer. The intention of the Key arguments section is to provide BRIEF summaries of the views of theory proponents followed by a one sentence rebuttal by theory opponents. Can anyone help with the citations? Radath (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v3) Lack of historical evidence from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Christ from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they cite that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 CE. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), a passage that states that Jesus Chrrist had followers and was crucified by Pilate, may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Christus, but myth proponents suggest they may have been forgeries, were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention Jesus by name. Theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Radath (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's much better, thank you, particularly the inclusion of the reference to Philo of Alexandria. The only little quibble I have is that I think it would be better to say "do not mention the name 'Jesus'" rather than "do not mention Jesus by name" in the sentence about Roman historians. I will try to supply some citations in the next day or two. Smeat75 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found citations for the statements that the vast majority of classical literature is lost and that the suggestion has been made by mythicists that the Tacitus passage (by far the most important one of the Roman authors) is merely reporting hearsay and is therefore worthless as historical evidence of Jesus. Would you like to put the revised paragraph in the longer of your versions into the article, Radath, and I will supply the citations where the tags say "citation needed." ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I made some minor edits after re-reading Chapter 2 of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? Last night. for example, when I said the Testimonium Flavianum referred to Jesus Christ, I was using the Wikipedia translation where the actual translation is "the Messiah". As for the last sentence, Ehrman states that Josephus wrote about a number of Jews on page 58, but I kept in the reference from page 44 that little was written about any Jew (or any person for that matter) as that was his argument. As well, I debated adding that Josephus also spoke about other people called Jesus (Ehrman, p. 58), but Ehrman states that the Testimonium and James the Just passages refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" (although Josephus never said Jesus was from Nazareth). Finally, I have changed the last sentence in all three Key arguments to start with "However" so it is clearly presenting the alternate view. I posted v4 on the main page so Smeat75 can add his citations. Radath (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v4) Lack of historical evidence about Jesus from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Christ from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they cite that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 CE. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Chrestus, but myth proponents suggest they may have been forgeries, were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention the name "Jesus". However, theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Radath (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You put in a clause about Josephus mentioning other people named Jesus, Radath, I took it out, it was a very common name at that time, it isn't that important and was turning this paragraph into "why Josephus cannot be believed on anything he says about Jesus" which is not what this paragraph should be about. In any case, that information did not belong before the reference to the Testimonium Flavianum, if it belongs anywhere it should go before the mention of the "brother of Jesus who was called James" passage.Smeat75 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reached when I added the multiple mentions of other people who were called Jesus after I had previously decided against it, and although I agree it might be better in the James sentence, it didn't work well with the verb "speculate" agreed on with Smeat75. At a minimum, the common Jesus name increases the possibility that Josephus could have (before interpolations) been talking about someone like Jesus son of Damneus who was High Priest of Israel. As for the deletion of my addition, I have been making edits on the assumption it was appropriate to "be bold" and add information to an article, but we should avoid deleting someone's properly-sourced text without first discussing on this page as per Bill the Cat's model for consensus. I would like to find a happy compromise, so here is my suggestion for everyone's thoughts:

• Current: There is also speculation the other Josephus reference, that James the Just was the brother of Jesus Christ, was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.
• Proposed: There is also speculation that when Josephus called James the Just the "brother" of Jesus Christ in a later passage, he was referring to another Jesus, a mythic Christ may already have been historicized, or he meant a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Radath (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes, that's fine, the "proposed" version is much better. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated myth paragraph

Well, I have been doing a lot of reading the last week or two (to the detriment of my family and other parts of my life), and here are my findings and "devil's advocate" arguments to explain updates to Key argument 3: Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity which I have just posted. My apologies that this analysis is longer than most articles, but I have put it in point form for easier reading.

• I suspect that, like myself, many people sought out the Christ myth wiki article because they had seen Bill Mahar's movie Religulous (the top-grossing documentary in 2008), Zeitgeist the Movie (the original 2007 version has 1.7 million YouTube views) or had read Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ (the best-seller in Canada that year and now available in 6 languages), which all list the Jesus-Horus similarities. There are hundreds of web pages, including a large number of YouTube videos, that focus on Jesus-Horus, so true or not, the idea is is out there.
• Tom Harpur is a respected former Rhodes scholar, Anglican priest, New Testament professor, journalist, broadcaster and best-selling author. In his books and his emails to me (which I quoted on March 2), Harpur (rightly or wrongly) believes in the Horus connection and that Gerald Massey has been ignored but not disproven. I was challenged last week to find a better citation for Horus other than Massey, and I believe Harpur delivers in his 2007 rebuttal to Porter and Gasque: "A reading of Siegfried Morenz's book Egyptian Religion (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1973 - see especially the footnotes on Horus, etc.) and a reading of Erik Hornung’s (2001) The Secret Lore of Egypt and its Impact on the West, will help cure any vagueness on this subject. Hornung, who is without question one of the leading Egyptologists of our time, says pointedly on page 73: “Notwithstanding its superficial rejection of everything pagan, early Christianity was deeply indebted to ancient Egypt ... the Christian slayer of the dragon [St.George] had its model in the triumph of Horus over Seth ... The miraculous birth of Jesus could be viewed as analogous to that of Horus, who Isis conceived posthumously from Osiris, and Mary was closely connected with Isis by many other shared characteristics.” I am now citing Dr. Hornung in the first sentence.
• Contributors who are CMT critics often target Massey and have even claimed he made everything up, but Godfrey Higgins wrote about the Jesus-Horus Isis-Mary connections 50 years before. Kersey Graves also wrote about dying and rising gods before Massey. This earlier authors had some pretty strange ideas, however, so to avoid criticism, I do not cite Higgins and Graves in the summary paragraph.
• I am almost finished reading Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth despite the negative reviews I have read in the last month (Carrier, Thompson, Verenna). I was surprised that he echoes what I wrote in Key argument 1 about the questionable authorship (he calls them forgeries), contradictions and historical inaccuracies of the gospels, and so I'm still grappling with his analogies (e.g., just because The Hitler Diaries are forgeries doesn't mean there was no Hitler) and his conclusions (certain gospel passages are likely to be true because they appear in more than one gospel, and Jesus was a preacher of an imminent apocalypse before his execution). However, thanks to Ehrman, I can now add Apollonius of Tyana to the paragraph (and have updated the Apollonius article with Ehrman's long list of Christ-like similarities). Ehrman briefly mentions Harpur, Thompson and Price early on and in footnotes, but I have not yet found where he specifically refutes them. Knowing his book was written in 2012 long after Religulous and Zeitgeist, and seeing he goes after targets like Murdock and Freke & Gandy, I expected an entire chapter refuting Higgins, Massey and Horus. Do you know how many times he mentions them? Zero found so far. Maybe Harpur was right about Massey being ignored
• So who in academia says that Massey was wrong? What published source can we cite that he made everything up? Do those websites that claim that Horus was called "The way, the truth, the life" in Book of the Dead all come from Massey, or are there scholarly sources that found that translation? If Massey is responsible for all this controversy about Horus, he should be incredibly famous, but he's not.
• I have read Gasque's critique on Harpur, but I question his methodology (he sent an email that we cannot read to 20 un-named egyptologists with a revealed list of 5 fairly obscure points about Horus, and of the ten who responded, he only gives one or two names, claiming that only one had even heard of Higgins, Kuhn or Massey, and all refute "suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ"). I personally believe he is over-confident in his concluding statement in the article and the CBC documentary that the historicity of Jesus is "incontrovertible".
• The only other major critique of Harpur et al. that I know of is Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea by Porter and Bedard (both Canadians like Harpur and Gasque). Neither are archaeologists, so I am not sure if they are qualified to refute Massey on the Horus question. I will let one of you buy and read that one.
• I just found an online version of Massey's biography which suggests he was relatively well known in his day with lecture trips to the United States, literary accolades from Walt Whitman, and an association with Robert Browning. Raising himself up from child labourer without the benefit of formal education, he was no "fool" as he was called here recently, but he may have been crazy for arguing there was no Jesus 140 years ago when blasphemy laws were still on the books in England. Sure he believed in spiritualism, but so did a lot of intelligent people at that time like Arthur Conan Doyle, Harry Houdini and Horace Greely. He was also upfront in his writings that he was capable of mistakes with his translations and interpretations, and like me, he happily corrected himself when a critic would point out an error. Also leafing through, I found a passage from 1887 that repeats Harpur's email that Dr Samuel Birch, head of Egyptian antiquities at the British museum, had befriended Massey, corrected his writings and offered advice. It also noted the assistance from other museum experts Claude Montefiore and Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, but that Birch's successor, Peter le Page Renouf, was a Roman Catholic convert who was accused of writing anonymous letters to publications meant to discredit Massey. On another page, I saw that famed translator Sir Richard Burton had read and made favourable comments about Massey's work, and that the Egyptian roots of Christianity were already well known among scholars. The book's epilogue lists some of his ideas that have been vindicated in modern times. Again, I don't have time to read the whole book and verify sources, but I think it's a fair indication Massey may have been more of an expert than we think. However, to avoid criticism, I do not cite Massey in the summary paragraph.
• During my surfing, I also found a YouTube video featuring an Egyptian archaeologist, Dr. Bojana Mojsov, who spoke about the similarities between Christianity and ancient Egypt. Turns out it is part of The Hidden Story of Jesus by Christian academic theologian Dr. Robert Beckford which appeared on Britain's Channel 4 in 2007. The program explores similarities with Krishna, Mithra, Buddah and Osiris, and, like Harpur's The Pagan Christ, argues we should focus on the message of Jesus rather than religious dogma.
• I have just finished reading The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems by Bob Price. Although it is heavy with long passages of both Old and New Testament scriptures to show their similarities, there are also dozens of references to other scholars and sparks of LOL humour. No matter what side of the debate you sit, I strongly urge you to spend the $10 and buy the ebook version (available from Amazon and Price's website), if for nothing else than to read his logical conclusions on the last three pages. The book reminded me to include relevant terms such as "divine men" and "mythic hero archetype" in the paragraph. Strangely this book does not mention Higgins, Massey or Horus either, but it does touch on documented similarities with other myths including analogies with Homer's The Odyssey which I found interesting. Although he doesn't talk about December 25 or mythical crucifixions, he lists enough other similarities with mythic figures to earn him the main citation for the relevant sentence in the paragraph. Although claimed by others, to avoid criticism and so I can use one reference, I have removed references to December 25 and crucifixion from the summary paragraph.
• My plan was to avoid referring to Murdock as I realize that anything she says will be seen as suspect by myth critics. However, I know her 2009 book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection received a positive review by Price, as well as endorsements from American archaeology professors Dr. Robert H. Eisenman and Dr. Kenneth Feder. Instead of buying the book, I found free versions of her Origins of Christianity (a short summary of similarities with Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Krishna and Prometheus), Zeitgeist Sourcebook, her response to a Zeitgeist critic, and her biography of Massey. There was was some interesting information, but I was disappointed (and think she does herself a disservice) that most of her Horus and Massey references point back to Massey or her own paid book, and I don't want to buy as I don't have time to read it right now. To avoid criticism, I do not cite Murdock in the summary paragraph.
• I sent the former myth summary paragraph to Richard Carrier for his thoughts as his new peer-reviewed book The Historicity of Jesus comes out later this year. Although he thought the paragraph had some accuracy problems, particularly the reference to Horus, he sent me two emails arguing the paragraph should remain as is since it accurately summarizes that some CMT proponents argue x, y, and z and CMT critics argue the opposite. However, Carrier doesn't realize the level of peer review I need to go through from fellow contributors like my friend Ckruschke, so I voluntarily made some changes. For example, I have removed Adonis, Attis, Baal and Damuzi/Tammuz to keep the paragraph short, unless anyone thinks any of these should be returned.
• I chose the actual reference authors and books based on various factors. If you have a problem with any of the citations (Erik Hornung, John M. Robertson, Martin Hengel, Arthur Drews, Robert M. Price, Zacharias P. Thundy, Nigel Leask, Thomas L. Brodie, and Bart D. Ehrman), I can replace them with another.
• So do I defend Massey as a legitimate scholar and believe that Jesus is a copy of Horus? As a skeptic, I have serious doubts, but I have yet to find credible evidence that fully discredits him either. But even if we had proof (which we do not) that Higgins, Massey and Murdock are big fat liars who made up 99% of everything they wrote, we also have to allow that at least some of their assertions or citations are based on some shreds of truth. Although the myths summary is the fun and sexy headline that leads to intriguing videos and brings in the crowds, I think it is the weakest of the three arguments, and if we removed the paragraph all together (which we should not), it would neither definitively prove nor disprove if Jesus lived or not.
• Comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. Radath (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Jesus-Horus connection is IMHO tentative at best. There are sources that point out that in the original Greek Paul seems to deny a virgin birth in Romans 1:1-3 (he talks of Jesus being the product of the seed or sperma of David ie through the male line) and Galatians 4:4 (Paul uses the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin)). Furthermore, the first recorded effort in a Christian Bible (Marcion) supposedly used a version of Luke that started at our Luke 3:1 ie no birth story and our oldest intact version of Luke (Papyrus 75) is also missing the birth story. This has lead some people to postulate that our Luke was a reaction to Marcion Gospel (was claimed Marcion said came from Paul). See Waite, Charles B. (1881) History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred and Tyson, Joseph B (2006) Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle University of South Carolina Press; annotated edition ISBN-13: 978-1570036507 for more on this aspect of Luke. However, the point is that the whole virgin birth thing seems to be a late addition to the Jesus story between Paul and when ever Matthew was written with stuff added to Luke between 140 and 180 CE to make it appear to agree with Matthew.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath - Wow - just Wow... You really put in some time on this. Very impressed. Sorry I didn't comment sooner, but I was out of the country. I have no comments - nagative or otherwise - on anything above. That's not particularly "constructive", but your research was so good anything that I have to say will seem uninformed. A well earned kudos on this one as you have gone WAY over and above! Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I realize the summary was a bit overboard in order to answer a simple challenge to find a scholarly Horus-Jesus citation and to demonstrate that Massey had some legitimacy, but it was fun doing the research. I hope my made my point that Horus and Massey deserve a place in the article. I'll try to be more brief in the future, at least for my own sanity. Thanks again to Ckruschke for pressing me to back up my assertions, because I think the updated paragraph makes a better argument than it did before. Radath (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated myth paragraph

Well, I have been doing a lot of reading the last week or two (to the detriment of my family and other parts of my life), and here are my findings and "devil's advocate" arguments to explain updates to Key argument 3: Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity which I have just posted. My apologies that this analysis is longer than most articles, but I have put it in point form for easier reading.

• I suspect that, like myself, many people sought out the Christ myth wiki article because they had seen Bill Mahar's movie Religulous (the top-grossing documentary in 2008), Zeitgeist the Movie (the original 2007 version has 1.7 million YouTube views) or had read Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ (the best-seller in Canada that year and now available in 6 languages), which all list the Jesus-Horus similarities. There are hundreds of web pages, including a large number of YouTube videos, that focus on Jesus-Horus, so true or not, the idea is is out there.
• Tom Harpur is a respected former Rhodes scholar, Anglican priest, New Testament professor, journalist, broadcaster and best-selling author. In his books and his emails to me (which I quoted on March 2), Harpur (rightly or wrongly) believes in the Horus connection and that Gerald Massey has been ignored but not disproven. I was challenged last week to find a better citation for Horus other than Massey, and I believe Harpur delivers in his 2007 rebuttal to Porter and Gasque: "A reading of Siegfried Morenz's book Egyptian Religion (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1973 - see especially the footnotes on Horus, etc.) and a reading of Erik Hornung’s (2001) The Secret Lore of Egypt and its Impact on the West, will help cure any vagueness on this subject. Hornung, who is without question one of the leading Egyptologists of our time, says pointedly on page 73: “Notwithstanding its superficial rejection of everything pagan, early Christianity was deeply indebted to ancient Egypt ... the Christian slayer of the dragon [St.George] had its model in the triumph of Horus over Seth ... The miraculous birth of Jesus could be viewed as analogous to that of Horus, who Isis conceived posthumously from Osiris, and Mary was closely connected with Isis by many other shared characteristics.” I am now citing Dr. Hornung in the first sentence and, to avoid criticism, I have removed all citations to Harpur in the summary paragraph.
• Contributors who are CMT critics often target Massey and have even claimed he made everything up, but Godfrey Higgins wrote about the Jesus-Horus Isis-Mary connections 50 years before. Kersey Graves also wrote about dying and rising gods before Massey. This earlier authors had some pretty strange ideas, however, so to avoid criticism, I do not cite Higgins and Graves in the summary paragraph.
• I am almost finished reading Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth despite the negative reviews I have read in the last month (Carrier, Thompson, Verenna). I was surprised that he echoes what I wrote in Key argument 1 about the questionable authorship (he calls them forgeries), contradictions and historical inaccuracies of the gospels, and so I'm still grappling with his analogies (e.g., just because The Hitler Diaries are forgeries doesn't mean there was no Hitler) and his conclusions (certain gospel passages are likely to be true because they appear in more than one gospel, and Jesus was a preacher of an imminent apocalypse before his execution). However, thanks to Ehrman, I can now add Apollonius of Tyana to the paragraph (and have updated the Apollonius article with Ehrman's long list of Christ-like similarities). Ehrman briefly mentions Harpur, Thompson and Price early on and in footnotes, but I have not yet found where he specifically refutes them. Knowing his book was written in 2012 long after Religulous and Zeitgeist, and seeing he goes after targets like Murdock and Freke & Gandy, I expected an entire chapter refuting Higgins, Massey and Horus. Do you know how many times he mentions them? Zero found so far. Maybe Harpur was right about Massey being ignored
• So who in academia says that Massey was wrong? What published source can we cite that he made everything up? Do those websites that claim that Horus was called "The way, the truth, the life" in Book of the Dead all come from Massey, or are there scholarly sources that found that translation? If Massey is responsible for all this controversy about Horus, he should be incredibly famous, but he's not.
• I have read Gasque's critique on Harpur, but I question his methodology (he sent an email that we cannot read to 20 un-named egyptologists with a revealed list of 5 fairly obscure points about Horus, and of the ten who responded, he only gives one or two names, claiming that only one had even heard of Higgins, Kuhn or Massey, and all refute "suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ"). I personally believe he is over-confident in his concluding statement in the article and the CBC documentary that the historicity of Jesus is "incontrovertible".
• The only other major critique of Harpur et al. that I know of is Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea by Porter and Bedard (both Canadians like Harpur and Gasque). Neither are archaeologists, so I am not sure if they are qualified to refute Massey on the Horus question. I will let one of you buy and read that one.
• I just found an online version of Massey's biography which suggests he was relatively well known in his day with lecture trips to the United States, literary accolades from Walt Whitman, and an association with Robert Browning. Raising himself up from child labourer without the benefit of formal education, he was no "fool" as he was called here recently, but he may have been crazy for arguing there was no Jesus 140 years ago when blasphemy laws were still on the books in England. Sure he believed in spiritualism, but so did a lot of intelligent people at that time like Arthur Conan Doyle, Harry Houdini and Horace Greely. He was also upfront in his writings that he was capable of mistakes with his translations and interpretations, and like me, he happily corrected himself when a critic would point out an error. Also leafing through, I found a passage from 1887 that repeats Harpur's email that Dr Samuel Birch, head of Egyptian antiquities at the British museum, had befriended Massey, corrected his writings and offered advice. It also noted the assistance from other museum experts Claude Montefiore and Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, but that Birch's successor, Peter le Page Renouf, was a Roman Catholic convert who was accused of writing anonymous letters to publications meant to discredit Massey. On another page, I saw that famed translator Sir Richard Burton had read and made favourable comments about Massey's work, and that the Egyptian roots of Christianity were already well known among scholars. The book's epilogue lists some of his ideas that have been vindicated in modern times. Again, I don't have time to read the whole book and verify sources, but I think it's a fair indication Massey may have been more of an expert than we think. However, to avoid criticism, I do not cite Massey in the summary paragraph.
• During my surfing, I also found a YouTube video featuring an Egyptian archaeologist, Dr. Bojana Mojsov, who spoke about the similarities between Christianity and ancient Egypt. Turns out it is part of The Hidden Story of Jesus by Christian academic theologian Dr. Robert Beckford which appeared on Britain's Channel 4 in 2007. The program explores similarities with Krishna, Mithra, Buddah and Osiris, and, like Harpur's The Pagan Christ, argues we should focus on the message of Jesus rather than religious dogma.
• I have just finished reading The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems by Bob Price. Although it is heavy with long passages of both Old and New Testament scriptures to show their similarities, there are also dozens of references to other scholars and sparks of LOL humour. No matter what side of the debate you sit, I strongly urge you to spend the $10 and buy the ebook version (available from Amazon and Price's website), if for nothing else than to read his logical conclusions on the last three pages. The book reminded me to include relevant terms such as "divine men" and "mythic hero archetype" in the paragraph. Strangely this book does not mention Higgins, Massey or Horus either, but it does touch on documented similarities with other myths including analogies with Homer's The Odyssey which I found interesting. Although he doesn't talk about December 25 or mythical crucifixions, he lists enough other similarities with mythic figures to earn him the main citation for the relevant sentence in the paragraph. Although claimed by others, to avoid criticism and so I can use one reference, I have removed references to December 25 and crucifixion from the summary paragraph.
• My plan was to avoid referring to Murdock as I realize that anything she says will be seen as suspect by myth critics. However, I know her 2009 book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection received a positive review by Price, as well as endorsements from American archaeology professors Dr. Robert H. Eisenman and Dr. Kenneth Feder. Instead of buying the book, I found free versions of her Origins of Christianity (a short summary of similarities with Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Krishna and Prometheus), Zeitgeist Sourcebook, her response to a Zeitgeist critic, and her biography of Massey. There was was some interesting information, but I was disappointed (and think she does herself a disservice) that most of her Horus and Massey references point back to Massey or her own paid book, and I don't want to buy as I don't have time to read it right now. To avoid criticism, I do not cite Murdock in the summary paragraph.
• I sent the former myth summary paragraph to Richard Carrier for his thoughts as his new peer-reviewed book The Historicity of Jesus comes out later this year. Although he thought the paragraph had some accuracy problems, particularly the reference to Horus, he sent me two emails arguing the paragraph should remain as is since it accurately summarizes that some CMT proponents argue x, y, and z and CMT critics argue the opposite. However, Carrier doesn't realize the level of peer review I need to go through from fellow contributors like my friend Ckruschke, so I voluntarily made some changes. For example, I have removed Adonis, Attis, Baal and Damuzi/Tammuz to keep the paragraph short, unless anyone thinks any of these should be returned.
• I chose the actual reference authors and books based on various factors. If you have a problem with any of the citations (Erik Hornung, John M. Robertson, Martin Hengel, Arthur Drews, Robert M. Price, Zacharias P. Thundy, Nigel Leask, Thomas L. Brodie, and Bart D. Ehrman), I can replace them with another.
• So do I defend Massey as a legitimate scholar and believe that Jesus is a copy of Horus? As a skeptic, I have serious doubts, but I have yet to find credible evidence that fully discredits him either. But even if we had proof (which we do not) that Higgins, Massey and Murdock are big fat liars who made up 99% of everything they wrote, we also have to allow that at least some of their assertions or citations are based on some shreds of truth. Although the myths summary is the fun and sexy headline that leads to intriguing videos and brings in the crowds, I think it is the weakest of the three arguments, and if we removed the paragraph all together (which we should not), it would neither definitively prove nor disprove if Jesus lived or not.
• Comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. Radath (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Jesus-Horus connection is IMHO tentative at best. There are sources that point out that in the original Greek Paul seems to deny a virgin birth in Romans 1:1-3 (he talks of Jesus being the product of the seed or sperma of David ie through the male line) and Galatians 4:4 (Paul uses the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin)). Furthermore, the first recorded effort in a Christian Bible (Marcion) supposedly used a version of Luke that started at our Luke 3:1 ie no birth story and our oldest intact version of Luke (Papyrus 75) is also missing the birth story. This has lead some people to postulate that our Luke was a reaction to Marcion Gospel (was claimed Marcion said came from Paul). See Waite, Charles B. (1881) History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred and Tyson, Joseph B (2006) Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle University of South Carolina Press; annotated edition ISBN-13: 978-1570036507 for more on this aspect of Luke. However, the point is that the whole virgin birth thing seems to be a late addition to the Jesus story between Paul and when ever Matthew was written with stuff added to Luke between 140 and 180 CE to make it appear to agree with Matthew.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath - Wow - just Wow... You really put in some time on this. Very impressed. Sorry I didn't comment sooner, but I was out of the country. I have no comments - nagative or otherwise - on anything above. That's not particularly "constructive", but your research was so good anything that I have to say will seem uninformed. A well earned kudos on this one as you have gone WAY over and above! Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I realize the summary was a bit overboard in order to answer a simple challenge to find a scholarly Horus-Jesus citation and to demonstrate that Massey had some legitimacy, but it was fun doing the research. I hope my made my point that Horus and Massey deserve a place in the article. I'll try to be more brief in the future, at least for my own sanity. Thanks again to Ckruschke for pressing me to back up my assertions, because I think the updated paragraph makes a better argument than it did before. Radath (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire and other Deists

I am thinking of writing an introduction to the 18th-19th century section mentioning how the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment paved the way for CMT. I understand that Deists like Voltaire (and maybe even US founding fathers Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), believed in Jesus but did not believe in the miracles of the New Testament, a position not so different than that of David Strauss who some call the father of CMT. As well, I remember reading that Voltaire argued once that Jesus never lived, although perhaps it was tongue in cheek or playing devils advocate in his dialogues as he often did. Does anyone have a reference for Voltaire's Jesus quote? Have any of the mythicist authors made this connection between Deists and CMT? Radath (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the researcher you are, but I'm happy to try and add my feeble help. The only quote I found from Voltaire on Jesus' divinity was his derogatory summary of the Socinians. His summary of the Church appears to be evenhanded and smacks of even being written by a believer. Reportedly his last words were: “I am abandoned by God and man! I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months’ life. Then I shall go to hell; and you will go with me. O Christ! O Jesus Christ!” So one wonders if he had a death-bead revelation (in fact, I read several Christian-oriented websites that, though uncited, go well beyond this quote to include additional dialogue that states that Voltaire had a full on death-bed conversation).

Regarding our Founding Fathers, to be fair I think that one would have to weigh their letters prior to their later, post-Revolution life, with their writings from their youth when many of them were swept up in the First Great Awakening. It is somewhat easy to cherry-pick quotes depending on which side of the aisle you are on, but I've read from several sources on our Founding Fathers that they were largely strong Christians in their youth, but somewhat embittered about the Church as they aged (speaking with a very broadbrush).

I'm sure none of this helps you, but I thought I'd tee something up anyway. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I feel it would be better, if possible, to try to keep the focus on the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all rather than people who did not / do not believe in the truth of the miracles of the NT. If we look at the first sentence of the lead of the article right now it says "The Christ myth theory ... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed" but that is sort of tilting at windmills because, first of all, you need to define how exactly Jesus is defined in the gospels, which there has never been agreement on, and then it is not at all a mainstream position that the "Jesus of the gospels" existed anyway. Very very few, maybe zero, I am not sure, mainstream scholars these days would insist that Jesus changed water into wine, raised the dead, etc. The idea "Jesus never existed at all" is a popular "conspiracy"-type theory on the web, and it is only going to get worse, or better I suppose according to your viewpoint, with Richard Carrier's forthcoming book on the subject. I almost feel it would be better to have a separate article just on the question "did Jesus exist (at all), or not" without also including the matters of possible influence on the gospels and the figure of Christ from other mythologies, etc., but I suppose the last thing WP needs is another article on Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand Smeat75's concern about not listing further people who believed in Jesus, but not his miracles, a category where I think we could easily put Franklin, Jefferson and Payne (Hitchens suggested Jefferson was not a Christian, but not that Jefferson didn't believe in a historical Jesus), but I still believe that anyone who questioned the literal interpretation of the New Testament back then would have paved the way for the first mythicists. I just found it strange that the position of these Founding Fathers (at least later in their lives) was essentially the same as David Strauss who caused so much controversy, the loss of his academic post and the label "Founder of CMT" a few decades later. Ironically, the views of Strauss were pretty similar or may have even been more conservative than those held by Ehrman (who calls himself an agnostic with atheist leanings) and many mainstream scholars today. As I stated on this Talk page on February 22, I think that CMT may have originally referred to anyone who thought any aspect of JC's life as described in the Bible was mythical, but I don't have a citation for that yet. I think Voltaire is in a different category though. If he had a deathbed conversion to Jesus as I have read several times, he must not have believed in Jesus for a portion of his life (or at least publicly argued the point, if only tongue-in-cheek or as devils advocate in one of his dialogues), and since he pre-dates Volnay and Dupuis, he should be in this article if we can find the citation. With that said, I'd bet anything that there were others before this who doubted the existence of Christ, but did so privately, anonymously (read about the Treatise of the Three Impostors which dates back to the 12th century), or if they went public, they probably ended up on the wrong side of the Inquisition and their works likely destroyed as heretical. Radath (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This problem of definition has persisted since the inception of this article. As noted above, the "Christ of Miracles" is not accepted to be truth by scholars, or even by most lay people, and exists only in the wishes of the faithful. "Christ" is thus a myth. However most scholars accept that there was a Founding Figure behind the current Christian stories, who may have been named Jesus. This is based partly on the New Testament, which is known to be replete with myth and fictions, and partly on two passing mentions in Josephus which are not universally accepted as original (in which case we still have to ask if Josephus was telling the truth to begin with, as he was also known to spin a tale or two), and a sparse mention in Tacitus, which doesn't even mention Jesus by name. A better definition of the CMT would thus be "The CMT holds that a Jesus-person probably did exist, but that the stories about him in the Bible are largely BS." The authors who write "That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" are also sprouting complete horse-manure - two passing mentions does not equate to the amount of solid evidence for Herod the Great or Julius Caesar etc, so these authors probably should not be considered to be WP:RS. Wdford (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A better definition of the CMT would thus be "The CMT holds that a Jesus-person probably did exist, but that the stories about him in the Bible are largely BS." But then, you see, that is really very little different than the mainstream view as represented for instance by Ehrman, which would only differ from that in dropping the "probably" and not being quite so rude. "Jesus did exist but the stories about him in the gospels are largely unhistorical" is entirely unexceptional, no Biblical scholar or theologian today would turn a hair at that, it is only when 'mythicists' say "there never was such a person at all" that they differ from the mainstream. That quote "That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" is from John Dominic Crossan, who "asserts that many of the gospel stories of Jesus are not factual... maintains the Gospels were never intended by their authors to be taken literally...proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.... believes in vision hypothesis "resurrection" by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians" etc etc. When they say things like "as certain as anything historical can ever be" they are trying to get across as forcefully as they can to the general public that there is no question about the historical fact of the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate as that has multiple attestation by the gospels, Josephus and Tacitus, extremely rare for any event in antiquity. And I don't understand what people mean when they say Tacitus "does not mention Jesus by name", are they suggesting there was some other Christos or Chrestos who was put to death by Pontius Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius who had followers in Rome called chrestiani or christiani?Smeat75 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire and other Deists

I am thinking of writing an introduction to the 18th-19th century section mentioning how the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment paved the way for CMT. I understand that Deists like Voltaire (and maybe even US founding fathers Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), believed in Jesus but did not believe in the miracles of the New Testament, a position not so different than that of David Strauss who some call the father of CMT. As well, I remember reading that Voltaire argued once that Jesus never lived, although perhaps it was tongue in cheek or playing devils advocate in his dialogues as he often did. Does anyone have a reference for Voltaire's Jesus quote? Have any of the mythicist authors made this connection between Deists and CMT? Radath (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the researcher you are, but I'm happy to try and add my feeble help. The only quote I found from Voltaire on Jesus' divinity was his derogatory summary of the Socinians. His summary of the Church appears to be evenhanded and smacks of even being written by a believer. Reportedly his last words were: “I am abandoned by God and man! I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months’ life. Then I shall go to hell; and you will go with me. O Christ! O Jesus Christ!” So one wonders if he had a death-bead revelation (in fact, I read several Christian-oriented websites that, though uncited, go well beyond this quote to include additional dialogue that states that Voltaire had a full on death-bed conversation).

Regarding our Founding Fathers, to be fair I think that one would have to weigh their letters prior to their later, post-Revolution life, with their writings from their youth when many of them were swept up in the First Great Awakening. It is somewhat easy to cherry-pick quotes depending on which side of the aisle you are on, but I've read from several sources on our Founding Fathers that they were largely strong Christians in their youth, but somewhat embittered about the Church as they aged (speaking with a very broadbrush).

I'm sure none of this helps you, but I thought I'd tee something up anyway. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I feel it would be better, if possible, to try to keep the focus on the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all rather than people who did not / do not believe in the truth of the miracles of the NT. If we look at the first sentence of the lead of the article right now it says "The Christ myth theory ... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed" but that is sort of tilting at windmills because, first of all, you need to define how exactly Jesus is defined in the gospels, which there has never been agreement on, and then it is not at all a mainstream position that the "Jesus of the gospels" existed anyway. Very very few, maybe zero, I am not sure, mainstream scholars these days would insist that Jesus changed water into wine, raised the dead, etc. The idea "Jesus never existed at all" is a popular "conspiracy"-type theory on the web, and it is only going to get worse, or better I suppose according to your viewpoint, with Richard Carrier's forthcoming book on the subject. I almost feel it would be better to have a separate article just on the question "did Jesus exist (at all), or not" without also including the matters of possible influence on the gospels and the figure of Christ from other mythologies, etc., but I suppose the last thing WP needs is another article on Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand Smeat75's concern about not listing further people who believed in Jesus, but not his miracles, a category where I think we could easily put Franklin, Jefferson and Payne (Hitchens suggested Jefferson was not a Christian, but not that Jefferson didn't believe in a historical Jesus), but I still believe that anyone who questioned the literal interpretation of the New Testament back then would have paved the way for the first mythicists. I just found it strange that the position of these Founding Fathers (at least later in their lives) was essentially the same as David Strauss who caused so much controversy, the loss of his academic post and the label "Founder of CMT" a few decades later. Ironically, the views of Strauss were pretty similar or may have even been more conservative than those held by Ehrman (who calls himself an agnostic with atheist leanings) and many mainstream scholars today. As I stated on this Talk page on February 22, I think that CMT may have originally referred to anyone who thought any aspect of JC's life as described in the Bible was mythical, but I don't have a citation for that yet. I think Voltaire is in a different category though. If he had a deathbed conversion to Jesus as I have read several times, he must not have believed in Jesus for a portion of his life (or at least publicly argued the point, if only tongue-in-cheek or as devils advocate in one of his dialogues), and since he pre-dates Volnay and Dupuis, he should be in this article if we can find the citation. With that said, I'd bet anything that there were others before this who doubted the existence of Christ, but did so privately, anonymously (read about the Treatise of the Three Impostors which dates back to the 12th century), or if they went public, they probably ended up on the wrong side of the Inquisition and their works likely destroyed as heretical. Radath (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This problem of definition has persisted since the inception of this article. As noted above, the "Christ of Miracles" is not accepted to be truth by scholars, or even by most lay people, and exists only in the wishes of the faithful. "Christ" is thus a myth. However most scholars accept that there was a Founding Figure behind the current Christian stories, who may have been named Jesus. This is based partly on the New Testament, which is known to be replete with myth and fictions, and partly on two passing mentions in Josephus which are not universally accepted as original (in which case we still have to ask if Josephus was telling the truth to begin with, as he was also known to spin a tale or two), and a sparse mention in Tacitus, which doesn't even mention Jesus by name. A better definition of the CMT would thus be "The CMT holds that a Jesus-person probably did exist, but that the stories about him in the Bible are largely BS." The authors who write "That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" are also sprouting complete horse-manure - two passing mentions does not equate to the amount of solid evidence for Herod the Great or Julius Caesar etc, so these authors probably should not be considered to be WP:RS. Wdford (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A better definition of the CMT would thus be "The CMT holds that a Jesus-person probably did exist, but that the stories about him in the Bible are largely BS." But then, you see, that is really very little different than the mainstream view as represented for instance by Ehrman, which would only differ from that in dropping the "probably" and not being quite so rude. "Jesus did exist but the stories about him in the gospels are largely unhistorical" is entirely unexceptional, no Biblical scholar or theologian today would turn a hair at that, it is only when 'mythicists' say "there never was such a person at all" that they differ from the mainstream. That quote "That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" is from John Dominic Crossan, who "asserts that many of the gospel stories of Jesus are not factual... maintains the Gospels were never intended by their authors to be taken literally...proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.... believes in vision hypothesis "resurrection" by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians" etc etc. When they say things like "as certain as anything historical can ever be" they are trying to get across as forcefully as they can to the general public that there is no question about the historical fact of the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate as that has multiple attestation by the gospels, Josephus and Tacitus, extremely rare for any event in antiquity. And I don't understand what people mean when they say Tacitus "does not mention Jesus by name", are they suggesting there was some other Christos or Chrestos who was put to death by Pontius Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius who had followers in Rome called chrestiani or christiani?Smeat75 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition of CMT Again

Well now is as good a time as any to propose a new first sentence with a clear definition. This time last month in a similar discussion, Atethnekos quoted Ehrman's definition from Did Jesus Exist? (2012) page 12: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." I have recently finished the book, and although I disagree with many of his tactics and conclusions, I think it is safe to say he is the scholar most quoted here, and his definition takes away some of the ambiguities. I believe that most authors in the article would fit under this definition. For example, Hitchens stated "Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure in history", but added there may have been some charismatic rabbi roaming around Palestine who believed he was the sun of God. I have two proposals: Radath (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Current: CMT...is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.
• Proposed (v1): CMT...is the proposition that Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he had little to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Proposed (v2): CMT...is the proposition that Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he was not the figure depicted in the gospels. Radath (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I used "gospels" rather than the Bible or NT for v2 because I believe Tom Harpur and Thomas Brodie both believe in a spiritual Christ as described in the Epistles and elsewhere in the scriptures, they just seriously doubt the historical parts, including the baptism and crucifixion that Ehrman likes to hold on to.Radath (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We might get the best of both worlds with this third proposal. As this is an important change, and many people might like to express their opinion, we should wait until Thursday noon UTC before posting.

• Proposed (v3): CMT...is the proposition that Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he was not the figure depicted in the gospels and had little to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support for v1. Any definition that refers to the "Jesus of the gospels" is going to be unsatisfactory in my opinion because there is no agreement about who or what the "Jesus of the gospels" is. For instance, the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke, tells many folk-like, down to earth parables. The Jesus of the gospel of John tells no parables but makes grandiose "I am" statements such as "I am the way the truth and the life", not present in the other three. So which Jesus is the Jesus of the gospels? If you say "the Jesus of the gospels told parables and made grandiloquent "I am" statements", you have created a composite gospel different from any of the originals. And Bart Ehrman is certainly an authority, it would be an excellent thing to have the definition as he defined it.Smeat75 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that is one vote for v1. I had changed Ehrman's words slightly from "had virtually nothing to do with" to "had little to do with" since I thought it sounded more encyclopedic, but I may have changed the meaning from some guy who was later mythologized (which I think is Ehrman's intent) to a gospel-style Jesus who put little effort into founding a church. With that said, here is v4 to quote Ehrman exactly if that is preferable. Radath (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed (v4): CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO we should go with a variant of John Robertson's 1900 "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" concept as we would have more then one reference for the lede. Perhaps CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he did not teach or die as reported by the Gospels might work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" - see my post above re "taught as reported in the Gospels" -taught parables? or taught "I am" sayings? There is no "taught as reported in the Gospels", they are contradictory. "put to death in the circumstances there recorded" Which circumstances are those? The ones in Mark or in John? From Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted " - "in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John,Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. Moreover, in Mark Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not condemned until noon and then he is taken out and crucified." It will not be an improvement at all in my opinion if any reference to the gospels is made. Also I think there is no reason to use a definition that is more than 100 years old when we can use Ehrman's current one, thinking and beliefs about Jesus and Christianity have utterly changed in the last 114 years.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat on both not using a reference to the gospels as well as using Ehrman's definition. My $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but what about the 1982 and 1995 editions International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J pg 1034 which states regarding Christ Myth theory that "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."? Unless I am misunderstanding "story of" here (which is possible because even after reading the thing several times I still have no idea if they mean story of ala King Arthur or ala King Lear here) that would be basically saying the same thing John Robertson said over 100 years ago.

Personally I think a variant of the one of the old lede may fit the bill: CMT...is the proposition that the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27.). That seems to fit "Christ Mythers" like current Wells and Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless your topic ban has been lifted, Bruce, bog off from this talk page. Paul B (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that user had been topic banned, but since he is, should his comments be removed from this discussion? we have been considering how to revise the lead of this important article, should a topic banned user's comments be left here, possibly to influence other editors?Smeat75 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

He's been topic banned, both from Christianity-related articles and from articles about fringe theories (which the subject of this article is). His account should be blocked, and since the posts he's made here recently are repeating the same kind of disruptive talk page posts that got him topic banned in the first place, his posts should be removed (or possibly collapsed or struck through so that other users aren't confused by a discussion with missing posts). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are an admin I think Akhilleus, can you remove BruceGrubb's comments from this page, or strike them through?Smeat75 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am an admin, but any user can remove comments or strike them through. At the moment I'm working on a post for the administrator's noticeboard to report Bruce's violation of his topic ban. (Since I've been in an editing dispute with him before, it would be improper for me to block him.) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the definition, I think that sticking with Ehrman is a good idea (the quote above is also close to some definitions given by Wells, Robert M. Price, and other sources). v3 or v4 seem fine to me, and I suppose I have a slight preference for v4. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

v4 would be fine with me too, or v1, not a version that refers to anything like "the Jesus of the gospels", in addition to the problems I have already noted with that, the Christ myth theory in the sense of "there was never any such person" is not only rejecting the gospels, but Josephus and Tacitus, one the reasons scholars such as Ehrman and Crossan reject the CMT so forcefully.Smeat75 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that most agree we should use Ehrman which gives the added advantage that we can add a scholarly citation, but it summarizes a longer definition by Earl Doherty so the context may be lost. I have two small concerns: (1) The first half of the sentence implies a definitive certainty about non-existence which makes skeptics like me uncomfortable (and why mythicists criticize Ehrman for his definitive certainty about existence). No mythicist author I have ever read has definitely stated that Jesus did not live or "there was never any such person". Harpur says "very doubtful", Price says "quite unlikely", Hitchens says "highly questionable", Dawkins says "surprisingly shaky" and Carrier says "very improbable". (2) I also fear the second half of the sentence still might confuse a casual reader. I think the "he" Ehrman refers to is Price's "figure of Jesus", Josephus' "wise teacher" or Hitchens' "charismatic rabbi". Before we decide on v4, we should consider these tiny clarifications in v5. Radath (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed (v5): CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus likely did not exist, or if there was a Jesus figure, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

" No mythicist author I have ever read has definitely stated that Jesus did not live or "there was never any such person"-have you read Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, Acharya S? "Jesus never lived" is exactly what they do say, and they and their ideas have a big presence on the internet. Carrier has a new book coming out soon that will put the idea "there was never any such person as Jesus" forward, he and his supporters are already making a big deal about the fact that it is the first "mythicist" book that has been peer-reviewed, and it denies historicity altogether. I agree that there are also "mythicists" who express doubt over Jesus' existence rather than certainty as to his non-existence, but I still vote for Ehrman's exact words as in your v4, not v5, we cannot do better imo than use the leading authority in this area at the moment, which is definitely Ehrman.Smeat75 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure we would like to continue the spirit of friendly discussions we have archieved on this Talk page lately, and although I would probably prefer to keep the reference to the gospels in the first sentence, I omitted it in 3 out of 5 of my proposals in order to reach consensus with Smeat75. I admit I have not read Doherty, and only glanced briefly at Murdock regarding her Egyptian references, but even if they definitely state that Jesus did not exist (perhaps someone can provide those citations), they do not have the scholarly legitimacy of Price and Harpur, or the renown of Hitchens and Dawkins (and I have read all their books that I quote twice). As for Carrier, no-one here has read his upcoming book or knows for certain his conclusions, so I took my quote from Carrier's Wiki page which states his position that it is "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person". Having just read Ehrman 2012, it is clear he tries to discredit the position of anyone who questions the historicity of Jesus by painting their position as extreme or insane, and for that reason, I chose to promote his definition reluctantly. With that said, I think it is not an unreasonable compromise to include the word "likely" since it does not substantially change the meaning of the sentence and since it better reflects the views of Price, Harpur, Hitchens, Dawkins, and most of the other authors in this article. Can we agree on this middle ground? Radath (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem to be snippy or rude towards you Radath, I do not mean to be, you are a very reasonable WP editor who listens to what other editors say and revises his/her edits accordingly, I think that is very commendable. I do agree with Ehrman about everything, though, I'm not ashamed to admit it. There is no point in being asked for one's opinion if one is not going to give it honestly and I prefer your v4 to your v5.Smeat75 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should include a mention of the Bible here. The fact that even the gospels themselves disagree with each other on who Jesus was is a serious issue which further undermines the credibility of the Bible stories, but we could say "the Jesus of any of the gospels". Therefore I propose as follows:

Proposed (v6): "CMT...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as portrayed in any of the gospels, and that the historical Jesus had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." I think that covers all the bases? Wdford (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have mixed opinions about all of the proposals so far, including my own, remembering the point of the exercise is to find a definition we can all agree on and quote in the future. Although I originally endorsed Ehrman's definition as an easy solution, it has some problems as I pointed out last night, and may be akin to asking Bob Price to write the opening sentence of the Historicity of Jesus article.

(1) I believe that the mythicist position is one of skepticism regarding the existence of Jesus rather than a firm disbelief (as well as criticism for people like Ehrman who write from a position of absolute certainty about their belief without sufficient evidence). As I pointed out in my post at 02:42, Price, Harpur, Dawkins, Hitchens and Carrier (unless he changes his position in his new book) all use words like doubtful, unlikely, questionable and improbable, and as Thompson points out, we will probably never know for sure one way or another since any evidence that might have existed is gone forever. If we paint ourselves in the corner with a strict definition that Jesus certainly did not exist without adding a modifier like "likely" or "unlikely", we might need to exclude most of the authors and all of the scholars on this page, including Price who embraces the mythicist title.

(2) I agree with Wdford that it makes sense to mention Jesus of Nazareth and the gospels so everyone knows which Jesus we are talking about. Adding the word "any" just confuses the issue, since most mythicists doubt any or all of the biblical accounts, and most readers will not understand the subtle reason for using that word.

(3) I still think the last part of the sentence will confuse many readers. The message should be that even IF there was some guy who had a small cult which eventually became Christianity, he was not the person described in the Bible since someone mythologized or fictionalized his biography. Radath (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless we can find an established scholarly definition from someone like Price who admits to being a mythicist, here is how I see it: Radath (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed (v7): "CMT...is the proposition that it is doubtful if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, and if a Jesus-like character did exist, he was likely not the fictional character described in the gospels." Radath (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit broad, since it appears to include the mainstream view among critical biblical scholars that the miracles etc are not to be accepted as historical. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a thought experiment to help us refine the definition. Suppose that Robert M. Price is right that the story of the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple are a deliberately rewritten version of stories about the historical Jesus bar Giora. Does that count as an instance of the CMT? I think it should, and that bar Giora cannot in that case be considered the HJ, even if it were true that that's were the name Jesus was taken from. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I think its common cause that the gospel stories were largely fictional, and that the only doubt is around whether or not there was a historical Jesus-figure at all, which most scholars seem to think was indeed the case. Then we may as well go with the much-simplified Proposed (v8): "CMT...is the proposition that most of what is written about the historical Jesus in the gospels of the New Testament is fictional." This should then be followed immediately by the contents of the current para 3. How about that? Wdford (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It might just be my reading, Wdford, but your version implies (to me) that there wasn't ANY Jesus, instead of the Jesus of the Bible who performed miracles and such. I think through the revisions we've lost the caveat of widespread agreement of Jesus the man. I know I've jumped in late, so if the comment was covered above and I missed it I apologize for push the thread off track. Ckruschke (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I am re-thinking of stepping back from my proposal version 7. I believe in the gospel reference, but we speak of the questionable accuracy of the NT in the next sentence, so perhaps we can compromise with Smeat75 and remove it.

I think I can reluctantly live with Ehrman's definition if we say "Jesus of Nazareth", we include the word "probably", and we include the definition from Doherty that Ehrman is summarizing within the citation <Bart Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.">

As for the word "probably", I have been reviewing Carrier's writings, and over and over again, and he argues probabilities and not certainties, as do Price, Harpur and all the other scholarly proponents of CMT. Based on Carrier's blog from October 2013, I am quite certain his new book will NOT argue "there was never any such person as Jesus" or "deny historicity altogether" as was suggested yesterday. Further to my earlier argument, without a modifier word like "likely" or "probably", we might as well erase most of the authors in the article and only keep Doherty and Murdock.

I look forward to all your comments. Radath (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see Carrier giving a lecture entitled "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist" [9], walking past a projection which says "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist, Richard Carrier" and his opening words are "Why do I think Jesus didn't exist?"Smeat75 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed (v9): "CMT...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth probably did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Radath (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks acceptable to me, but why don't we go with the Doherty definition? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought of using Doherty, Martijn, but it is a little long and flowery, Doherty lacks the scholarly credentials often demanded by contributors here, we would need to add several modifiers like "probably" or "likely" as I previously argued, and most importantly, it is repetitive with the existing second sentence which I like and have just added to v9, but I am open to suggestions. Radath (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about putting the word "probably" in there, although I don't think it is really necessary as the next clause says "or if he did he had virtually nothing to do"etc. I would like to see if Akhilleus and Bill the cat express their opinion. Thank you for leaving Jesus "of the gospels" or the NT out of the first line.Smeat75 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a productive discussion, and I don't have much to add. v9 is ok with me. However, I'm not enthusiastic about using "probably" in that sentence, because most CMT proponents argue that Jesus didn't exist, rather than that he probably didn't exist. And in my opinion when a proponent says Jesus probably didn't exist, that's a rhetorical maneuver, rather than a substantive one (i.e., they believe that Jesus really didn't exist, but they're stating it in a milder form). --Akhilleus (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If people don't like "probably", we could instead say "likely". As I noted earlier, NONE of the authors of whose relevant books I have read (and re-read) in the last two months while researching for this article say definitely that Jesus never existed. If anyone wants, I can provide citations that Harpur says "very doubtful", Price says "quite unlikely", Hitchens says "highly questionable", Dawkins says "surprisingly shaky" and Carrier says "very improbable", while others like Thompson and Verenna say they are "agnostic" on the subject since it is impossible to prove either thesis. There may be others like Doherty or Murdock who make that claim with certainty, but no-one has taken up my challenge to show me quotes that they do. Radath (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not hard to find places where Carrier refers to the CMT (he usually calls it mythicism) as the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Here's an example: [10]. Carrier may say that he personally believes that mythicism is likely rather than certain, but this is not the same thing as saying that mythicism is the belief that Jesus probably didn't exist. If you look at The Historical Jesus: Five Views, to which Robert M. Price contributes a chapter, it's clear that the other contributors to the book understand Price to be arguing that Jesus didn't exist. G. A. Wells' entry on the historicity of Jesus in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief says: "The more radical view that there was no historical Jesus at all is still vigorously defended by a few scholars, notably Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price." (In this entry Wells says that he once denied Jesus' historicity but has since changed his mind.) Earlier figures such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and John M. Robertson also argued definitely that Jesus didn't exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ï agree. I'd say that the CMT is that there definitely was no Jesus, not just probably not, and Price is someone who believes the CMT is probably true. Not the same thing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can only know what I read. Price in his 2011 CMT book says "I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus" (p.25). He makes similar statements several times through the book and then concludes "Let me summarize the major factors that lead me to accept the Christ Myth as the most likely hypothesis to explain the data. (p. 425). As for Carrier, the blog entry from 2012 that Akhileus quoted concludes with "Obviously, saying all this is by no means sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus didn’t exist," and the blog entry from 2013 that I quoted specifically states his position is to speak about probabilities and not about certainties. Are Price and Carrier being sincere or simply using a rhetorical manoeuvre as was suggested earlier today? We are all free to speculate our opinions on this Talk page, but in the article itself, our role as amateur contributors to an online encyclopedia is to report what they and other experts have written, and the more recent the source the better. With that said, most if not all contemporary scholars who we feature in this article make it a point to use words like "likely" in their writings about CMT, and, therefore, so should we.

As a reminder, I had suggested we take until Thursday noon UTC to discuss the wording of this important first sentence. There has been good debate, friendly compromises, and unless someone else expresses a concern, can I assume consensus? Radath (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my proposed wording excluded that Jesus may have existed as a man - that's why I used the words "historical Jesus". However if that is too subtle, then I am quite happy to expand on it. But I still don't understand why Smeat75 is insistent on excluding any mention of the NT - Jesus is only described in the NT, and nowhere else. The two disputed mentions in Josephus tell us nothing about him - even assuming they are valid - the passing mention in Tacitus tells us nothing either, and the letters of the early Church Fathers are derived from the NT with a lot of personal supposition added on. I feel a mention of the NT is a must. Also, while some CMT proponents do apparently believe there was never a historical Jesus, others accept the possibility of a real historical person about whom much nonsense was spun in the NT after his death. If we cherry-pick a narrow definition of the CMT then a) we are misrepresenting the CMT and b) we are going in circles, whereby some wiki-authors insert quotes that Jesus' existence is "irrefutable" thus the CMT is fringe, while other authors insert evidence that the gospel stories are fiction. Proposed (v10): "CMT...is the proposition that either there never was a historical Jesus Christ, or that there may have been a historical Jesus but most of what was written about him in the New Testament is fictional." This should then be followed immediately by the contents of the current para 3 to expand on this point. Wdford (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have held off posting until noon on Friday so we can find common wording. Although I see the logic and simplicity of using a definition devised by a scholar we all know, I realize the Ehrman definition has some problems. If we were to go with Wdford's "either/or" wording, I would be OK dropping my "probably/likely" wording since it is very clear that it is not a statement of certainty. I admit I still do not understand Smeat75's objection to a biblical reference, but if we do mention the Bible, I think we should say "gospels" since we use NT in the next sentence and since CMT proponents who still consider themselves Christians like Harpur and Brodie believe in a spiritual Christ described in the Epistles and elsewhere. For that reason, I think we should also say Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus Christ. I get confused myself by what is meant as "historical "Jesus (is that the person historically known for being crucified, or the wise rabbi who may have had some followers?), and doubly confused since the word "historical" is used twice in this sentence. Finally, while I think v10 has some merit, I STRONGLY OBJECT to following this sentence with paragraph 3 that explains that scholars outright reject CMT and endorse the baptism and crucifixion. It is one thing having such a prominent criticism paragraph in the lede of any article, it is another to make it part of an opening paragraph thus rejecting CMT before we have had a chance to introduce the three arguments in sentence 2 or the varieties of the theory described in paragraph 2. I only proposed a new opening sentence since we have already reached a consensus on the rest of the opening a month ago. Radath (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Para 3 doesn't say that scholars reject the CMT, it says that they generally accept that some sort of historical Jesus-person lived but that they reject most of the gospel stories about him. It comes back to the subtle difference between a "Christ Myth Theory" and a "Jesus Myth Theory". I'm not married to the idea, I just think that it would be good to clarify directly after the opening sentence exactly what scholars mean by "the gospel stories are mostly fictional". I am also happy to say Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus Christ - I used the word Christ in case somebody else wants to fuss over the point that the historical Jesus really did live in Nazareth. I am also happy to use "gospels" rather than NT, as long as we explicitly refer to the Bible in some form, although I don't think the stories in Acts are historical either. Wdford (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal v11: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed. Some scholars concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and are based on myths. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived as a man. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

There remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Wdford (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude or unfriendly or uncooperative, opinions were asked for and I gave mine, and since it hasn't changed, I am not sure of the point of repeating it over and over, but once again, I will point out that I posted a link to a youtube video above on this thread at 21:34, 19 March 2014, where you can see Richard Carrier [11], walking past a projection which says "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist, Richard Carrier" and his opening words are "Why do I think Jesus didn't exist?". Akhilleus points out that Carrier defines "mythicism" "as the idea that Jesus didn't exist".Mmeijeri also says " I'd say that the CMT is that there definitely was no Jesus, not just probably not." So that is three editors here for the CMT as "Jesus did not exist", not "Jesus probably did not exist". I was willing to drop my objection to "probably" if I was the only one making it, but that is not the case. I know from previous discussions that Akhilleus, Mmeijeri and I come to this question from very different perspectives and Mmeijeri and I are often on "opposing sides" but here we are in agreement. My perspective is from someone who is really interested in the clash between the "pagan" Roman empire and the early church, I am far from being any great expert, just someone who has read quite a bit of Roman history, and I know that there are no classical historians who have expressed agreement with "mythicists" that "the passing mention in Tacitus tells us nothing". That is not what historians say.They don't say "The two disputed mentions in Josephus tell us nothing about him" either, that is the "mythicist" position, and so the idea "Jesus never existed" is not only rejecting the gospels or the NT, but Jewish and Roman historians too, a point made by highly skeptical as to any event in the gospels John Dominic Crossan when he says "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact" and by equally skeptical Ehrman who "states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus." [12] I thought Radath's idea of using Ehrman's words as the definition was the best one, it includes the idea of possible existence as it says "CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Also that does not refer to the Jesus of the gospels or the NT but the historical Jesus. Anyone who has read some ancient history knows that there are many figures from ancient Greece or Rome who are only known from a single reference in, for instance, Tacitus or Josephus, there is nothing unusual about that at all. When you find two ancient sources in agreement that is strong confirmation. I am not setting myself up as holding some sort of veto power here, I will accept consensus, but as far as I can see consensus as expressed is actually for using the Ehrman quote in his exact words, with a reference.Smeat75 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated many times, I personally accept that a Jesus-person existed and was crucified, but that the bulk of the gospel stories about him are fiction. Therefore, if we selectively use a definition that limits the CMT to "there was no such person ever" and then shoot it down as fringe, we invite the other side of the argument to reinsert the well-established view that the gospels are known to be BS. How is that an improvement? I would prefer not to quote any single author in the lead, as not all authors necessarily agree. I have no gripe with Ehrman, just that he does not speak for everyone on the subject. The fact that Ehrman happened to not use the phrase "Jesus of the gospels" is not significant, as Ehrman was using the line in a context which made the meaning clear - a context which we do not have in the first paragraph of this article. I think that Proposal v11 fairly represents the many nuances of the CMT debate, in a logical and coherent manner. Is there any particular line which Smeat75 objects to, and on what basis please? Wdford (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"a definition that limits the CMT to "there was no such person ever" It doesn't say that Wdford, it makes it very clear that there are two variants of the CMT - (1.")the historical Jesus did not exist (2).OR IF HE DID he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". It therefore leaves plenty of room for discussion both for proponents of "he did not exist" and "he probably didn't exist". And I keep saying that Jesus /Christ is not only known from the Gospels but Tacitus and Josephus as well, which is why Ehrman's historical Jesus is better than any reference to the gospels or the New Testament. That's what I think, if I change my mind I will let the page know, can people please now stop asking me about those points, endless repetition of the same points just clutters up a talk page. You could not use the word "fictional" in the sentence "most of what was written about him in the New Testament is fictional" unless you found a very strong reference that CMT writers use that word, "fiction" means something that someone has written with no pretense that it is the truth, a "myth" is not the same thing as "fiction", neither is "legend", neither is "lies", if you make up a story and present it as truth, you are not writing fiction but trying to deceive.Smeat75 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If Carrier's view at one time was that Jesus did not exist, I have emailed him and he confirmed to me that he argues "Jesus probably didn't exist, not that he certainly didn't," and that his upcoming book will use wording reflected in his October 13 blog. I have repeated multiple times the last two days, the other NT scholars who endorse CMT (Price, Harpur, Brodie) all make sure they use words like "highly doubtful" or "unlikely", and Thompson endorses Jesus agnosticism. If we cannot agree to include the word "likely", then I withdraw my support for any proposal (including my own) that uses the Ehrman quote. I know that Ehrman wants to make any skepticism about Jesus sound extreme, but that doesn't mean we need to give him a forum in the first sentence of a theory that he rejects.

As for Wdford's v12, now that I see this proposed re-arrangement and that the opening sentence would be followed by paragraph 2 (he earlier said paragraph 3 which starts with "Despite arguments..."), I thinks it makes a lot of sense and will support it, but I think we need to include a word like "likely" or "highly doubtful" in the first sentence as per Price, Carrier, and Harpur, and that uncertainty will make the following sentences make more sense to the casual reader. Radath (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is legitimate to change the definition based on fear others will declare the point of view fringe. The CMT is whatever it is. Still, I don't see how Carrier's "probably" matters. I'd say it merely indicates he is not completely sure of the CMT, not that the CMT itself contains uncertainty. In fact, all scientific theories are provisional, so then you could add probably to the definition of all theories, which doesn't seem helpful. It seems to me that making the definition too broad is the bigger problem. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Point well take, Martijn, but CMT is an argument of doubt not certainty, and without a word like "likely"' this very important first sentence reflects the views of Doherty and Acharya S, but not Price, Carrier, and Harpur. Radath (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've followed your example and sent an email to Price to ask for his opinion on this. If he replies, that won't be a reliable source we can cite, but it could help us interpret things. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if the word "likely" is used or not because, either way, it is a fringe theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well now this is exactly the kind of mindless comment we have been trying to avoid. There is no solid definition out there to begin with, so while Ehrman may try to define the CMT in a particular way he does not speak for everyone. What Ehrman is shooting at is actually the "Jesus Myth Theory" - Ehrman himself maintains that the Divine Christ was a myth, although he supports the existence of a human Jesus-person. I oppose cherry-picking a definition, and suggest instead that we try to reflect all the various points of view. Almost everyone agrees that the gospels are largely fictional, so if we leave the lead as it currently is then at least its accurate and balanced. If we try to fine-tune it further then it must remain accurate and balanced. Wdford (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I admit I am sorry I brought the whole thing up, especially since we have been so friendly here lately. But now that we have gone this far, I think we need to change that first sentence to include a word like "likely"' and I think v11 presents a definite improvement. I would be interested to hear what Price says. The nearest definition he gives is on page 25 of The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems: "I will argue that it is quite LIKELY there never was any historical Jesus" (p.25). I am waiting to hear from Carrier and Harpur. I also wish to remind everyone that we have successfully created a friendly atmosphere of late, and words like fringe theory are meant to be insulting and dismissive of other people's views, and have no place here. Radath (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have received an email from Carrier urging me to fight for a word like "likely" and pointing me to http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733. I would also accept "... that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist in all likelihood" Radath (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

With reference to Carrier's email, I agree with Martijn says above "I don't see how Carrier's "probably" matters. I'd say it merely indicates he is not completely sure of the CMT, not that the CMT itself contains uncertainty." We don't need to e-mail Ehrman, we have his definition, which Radath originally suggested, I think that is the best one no matter what Carrier or Price say. I wonder if it would be a good idea to get an outside opinion here, I think the participants in this discussion, myself certainly included, have very firm and rather entrenched views on this matter, it might help if we can find an impartial outside opinion, just on the question of the definition. Would others think it is a good idea to take that to WP:DRN?Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I submit that the first and second sentences of Proposal v11 completely encapsulate Ehrman's definition, although in different words which are simpler and more inclusive. The first and second sentences together cover what Ehrman believes, but to merge those two sentences into a single sentence would be unwieldy. I really don't like to use a quote in the first paragraph of a lead, especially when that definition is not universally accepted. I suggest therefore that we implement Proposal v11 already, with the word "likely" or "probably" added in where appropriate. The phrase "Some scholars" at the beginning of the second sentence could be changed to "Most scholars" if we feel that is more accurate. Wdford (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Smeat75. CMT is an argument of probabilities and skeptical uncertainty. I don't think that even Doherty or Murdock claim to have a smoking gun that Jesus didn't exist, as opposed to Ehrman who confidently declares that Jesus definitely existed. I have demonstrated that CMT-supporting scholars like Price, Carrier and Harpur all use words like "likely". For the last two months that I have been contributing, I have accepted just about every compromise suggested to me, even when I don't agree. I just don't understand how adding words like "likely" or "in all likelihood" radically changes the definition or harms anyone here. Radath (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support something to the effect of "highly unlikely JC didn't exist". And my main reason for this support is that in history, especially ancient history, nothing is certain 0% or 100%. It's all about probabilities. So, CMT supporters would say that the % chance he didn't exist is >99% (or something exceptional high), while everyone else would say the % chance that he didn't exist is <1%. What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am good with ..."is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels ever existed." To put this debate to an end, we could keep the whole lede as it stands now and just change this sentence.Radath (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Price just replied to my email. He wrote "I'd say the CMT is the position that no historical Jesus existed. The issue of "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory; rather it is a question of how firmly one holds to the theory. How sure is a particular scholar that the position is true?". That said, I'm not against including the word probably, though I think leaving it out might be better.

I'm not sure about the "as depicted in the gospels" though, as that seems too broad. Merely disputing the historicity of the miracles appears to be included in that definition. Hmm, this is getting complicated. Should we perhaps make a list of the objections that have been made to the various proposals so we can try to come up with a definition that deals with them all? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath says"I have accepted just about every compromise suggested to me, even when I don't agree." But you suggested this change to start with, I was agreeing with you. I don't understand why Radath and Wdford keep referring to me, Akhilleus and Martijn have said the same thing as me with regard to "probably" or "likely". And we have gone round in a circle here, I actually object more to "Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels" than anything else and have said so from the beginning, that is not an improvement at all, there is no "Jesus as depicted in the gospels".Smeat75 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably over-simplifying, but I supported several of the others above and thought Version 9 was good to go. Not to cast aspersions or derail the discussion, which I have largely/purposely stayed out of and seems very helpful, but seems like we are splitting hairs at this point. If we have to edit "Jesus of Nazareth" to make it palatable, then so be it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, I already said I would agree with v9 and would not argue with the putting the word "probably" in there but would wait to see what others said and Akhilleus and Martijn then said they did not support the word "probably" either, if they remove their objections then so do I.Smeat75 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It’s not just the miracles that are disputed – the virgin birth, the resurrection etc are also disputed (in fact virtually everything that makes Christ different to a Jewish prophet is rejected.) The only parts that are accepted are the baptism and the crucifixion, as the lead already clearly states. It’s wrong to say that "CMT is the theory that Jesus of the gospels probably never existed" – it is DEFINITE that Jesus as portrayed in the gospels never existed – some other Jesus probably did exist, but not the god-man of the gospels. I reject the assertion that "there is no Jesus as depicted in the gospels", as there clearly is – however inconsistent the various depictions might be. The point of the CMT is that the gospels are fiction – Jesus/Yeshua probably lived, but was not a god-man and the stories about him are largely false. The historical Jesus was not The Christ – that part is a myth.

In the body of the article Price is quoted as saying "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean."

I offer Proposal v13 , which is even more slimmed down:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus Christ as depicted in the gospels never existed as such. Some scholars believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived as a man. Others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. There is a strong consensus among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Wdford (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Under your definition, would Ehrman's view be considered CMT? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus Christ as depicted in the gospels never existed as such" - nope, I'm sorry, that is not the CMT at all, that is the mainstream view. We might as well just leave it as it is now. Smeat75 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I previously stated I would supported WDford's v11 if he added the "likely" modifier, but there are several things I don't like about v13. There is no "likely" statement which is it the only thing I'm requesting. I am of two minds about the reference to the gospels' but can live without it. I think the first paragraph is now too long and complicated, but excludes the view of Harpur and Brodie about a spiritual Christ. I really don't like that the information about the strong scholarly consensus (with the half-dozen citations that will come with it) and the universal assent of the baptism/crucifixion information from paragraph 3 are now in the opening paragraph. I think it is too blunt and short for a lede, and I just don't like the flow as much as what we have now. I was hoping we were reaching consensus on v9. Radath (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with v9, but strongly opposed to 11 and 13. I also wonder about Brodie and Harpur. Do they consider themselves proponents of the CMT, or are their theories merely related to it? It seems to me that Brodie's view, while unorthodox, is of a religious and supernatural nature, while Ehrman's view is nonreligious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I occasionally correspond with Harpur who never uses the term CMT (he wrote in 2006 before Price and others), but he never objects when I use the term to describe his views. He believes it is "highly doubtful" that Jesus lived, but instead believes in a pre-existent and spiritual Christ who lives within us. I have not read Brodie, but since he is still a Roman Catholic priest, I assume his views are similar to Harpur's. Radath (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I will offer a suggestion for others' comments. I'm not going to worry about elegant wording, just see if others agree with the general idea - "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Some past and present proponents of this theory state that it is probable that there never was such a person, others who put the theory forward state that Jesus definitely did not exist. Many proposers of the Christ Myth Theory suggest that even if there was such a person as Jesus,he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." I guess this makes v14.Smeat75 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kicking myself that I did not go live at 12:00 UTC like I originally promised as we would have v9 now. Radath (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose we go with v9 now and see how that goes. We can always reopen the discussion later if anyone wants to. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support the suggestion of Martijn Meijering to use v9 with Ehrman's definition as first suggested last month by --Akhilleus and originally supported by Smeat75. Due to the excellent suggestion from Bill the Cat 7 (perhaps the first time we have publicly agreed), I will change the word "probably" he didn't exist to "highly unlikely" that he did exist. Wdford asked that we include the words "as described in the gospels"' (a move I would support if others would agree), but I think most readers think of Jesus of Nazareth as the biblical Jesus, and in the next sentence where we say "NT has no historical value", we could instead say "NT and its gospels have no historical value". How about it, guys? Radath (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that sounds feasible - please would you word it up and lets see what it looks like in black & white? PS How about we use the phrase "biblical Jesus of Nazareth"? (Neither Tacitus nor Josephus refer to miracles, virgin births or resurrections.) Wdford (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition of CMT Again

Well now is as good a time as any to propose a new first sentence with a clear definition. This time last month in a similar discussion, Atethnekos quoted Ehrman's definition from Did Jesus Exist? (2012) page 12: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." I have recently finished the book, and although I disagree with many of his tactics and conclusions, I think it is safe to say he is the scholar most quoted here, and his definition takes away some of the ambiguities. I believe that most authors in the article would fit under this definition. For example, Hitchens stated "Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure in history", but added there may have been some charismatic rabbi roaming around Palestine who believed he was the sun of God. I have two proposals: Radath (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Current: CMT...is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.
• Proposed (v1): CMT...is the proposition that Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he had little to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Proposed (v2): CMT...is the proposition that Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he was not the figure depicted in the gospels. Radath (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I used "gospels" rather than the Bible or NT for v2 because I believe Tom Harpur and Thomas Brodie both believe in a spiritual Christ as described in the Epistles and elsewhere in the scriptures, they just seriously doubt the historical parts, including the baptism and crucifixion that Ehrman likes to hold on to.Radath (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We might get the best of both worlds with this third proposal. As this is an important change, and many people might like to express their opinion, we should wait until Thursday noon UTC before posting.

• Proposed (v3): CMT...is the proposition that Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he was not the figure depicted in the gospels and had little to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support for v1. Any definition that refers to the "Jesus of the gospels" is going to be unsatisfactory in my opinion because there is no agreement about who or what the "Jesus of the gospels" is. For instance, the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, Mark, Matthew and Luke, tells many folk-like, down to earth parables. The Jesus of the gospel of John tells no parables but makes grandiose "I am" statements such as "I am the way the truth and the life", not present in the other three. So which Jesus is the Jesus of the gospels? If you say "the Jesus of the gospels told parables and made grandiloquent "I am" statements", you have created a composite gospel different from any of the originals. And Bart Ehrman is certainly an authority, it would be an excellent thing to have the definition as he defined it.Smeat75 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that is one vote for v1. I had changed Ehrman's words slightly from "had virtually nothing to do with" to "had little to do with" since I thought it sounded more encyclopedic, but I may have changed the meaning from some guy who was later mythologized (which I think is Ehrman's intent) to a gospel-style Jesus who put little effort into founding a church. With that said, here is v4 to quote Ehrman exactly if that is preferable. Radath (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed (v4): CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO we should go with a variant of John Robertson's 1900 "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" concept as we would have more then one reference for the lede. Perhaps CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he did not teach or die as reported by the Gospels might work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" - see my post above re "taught as reported in the Gospels" -taught parables? or taught "I am" sayings? There is no "taught as reported in the Gospels", they are contradictory. "put to death in the circumstances there recorded" Which circumstances are those? The ones in Mark or in John? From Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted " - "in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John,Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. Moreover, in Mark Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not condemned until noon and then he is taken out and crucified." It will not be an improvement at all in my opinion if any reference to the gospels is made. Also I think there is no reason to use a definition that is more than 100 years old when we can use Ehrman's current one, thinking and beliefs about Jesus and Christianity have utterly changed in the last 114 years.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat on both not using a reference to the gospels as well as using Ehrman's definition. My $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but what about the 1982 and 1995 editions International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J pg 1034 which states regarding Christ Myth theory that "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."? Unless I am misunderstanding "story of" here (which is possible because even after reading the thing several times I still have no idea if they mean story of ala King Arthur or ala King Lear here) that would be basically saying the same thing John Robertson said over 100 years ago.

Personally I think a variant of the one of the old lede may fit the bill: CMT...is the proposition that the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27.). That seems to fit "Christ Mythers" like current Wells and Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless your topic ban has been lifted, Bruce, bog off from this talk page. Paul B (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that user had been topic banned, but since he is, should his comments be removed from this discussion? we have been considering how to revise the lead of this important article, should a topic banned user's comments be left here, possibly to influence other editors?Smeat75 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

He's been topic banned, both from Christianity-related articles and from articles about fringe theories (which the subject of this article is). His account should be blocked, and since the posts he's made here recently are repeating the same kind of disruptive talk page posts that got him topic banned in the first place, his posts should be removed (or possibly collapsed or struck through so that other users aren't confused by a discussion with missing posts). --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are an admin I think Akhilleus, can you remove BruceGrubb's comments from this page, or strike them through?Smeat75 (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am an admin, but any user can remove comments or strike them through. At the moment I'm working on a post for the administrator's noticeboard to report Bruce's violation of his topic ban. (Since I've been in an editing dispute with him before, it would be improper for me to block him.) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the definition, I think that sticking with Ehrman is a good idea (the quote above is also close to some definitions given by Wells, Robert M. Price, and other sources). v3 or v4 seem fine to me, and I suppose I have a slight preference for v4. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

v4 would be fine with me too, or v1, not a version that refers to anything like "the Jesus of the gospels", in addition to the problems I have already noted with that, the Christ myth theory in the sense of "there was never any such person" is not only rejecting the gospels, but Josephus and Tacitus, one the reasons scholars such as Ehrman and Crossan reject the CMT so forcefully.Smeat75 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad that most agree we should use Ehrman which gives the added advantage that we can add a scholarly citation, but it summarizes a longer definition by Earl Doherty so the context may be lost. I have two small concerns: (1) The first half of the sentence implies a definitive certainty about non-existence which makes skeptics like me uncomfortable (and why mythicists criticize Ehrman for his definitive certainty about existence). No mythicist author I have ever read has definitely stated that Jesus did not live or "there was never any such person". Harpur says "very doubtful", Price says "quite unlikely", Hitchens says "highly questionable", Dawkins says "surprisingly shaky" and Carrier says "very improbable". (2) I also fear the second half of the sentence still might confuse a casual reader. I think the "he" Ehrman refers to is Price's "figure of Jesus", Josephus' "wise teacher" or Hitchens' "charismatic rabbi". Before we decide on v4, we should consider these tiny clarifications in v5. Radath (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed (v5): CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus likely did not exist, or if there was a Jesus figure, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Radath (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

" No mythicist author I have ever read has definitely stated that Jesus did not live or "there was never any such person"-have you read Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, Acharya S? "Jesus never lived" is exactly what they do say, and they and their ideas have a big presence on the internet. Carrier has a new book coming out soon that will put the idea "there was never any such person as Jesus" forward, he and his supporters are already making a big deal about the fact that it is the first "mythicist" book that has been peer-reviewed, and it denies historicity altogether. I agree that there are also "mythicists" who express doubt over Jesus' existence rather than certainty as to his non-existence, but I still vote for Ehrman's exact words as in your v4, not v5, we cannot do better imo than use the leading authority in this area at the moment, which is definitely Ehrman.Smeat75 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure we would like to continue the spirit of friendly discussions we have archieved on this Talk page lately, and although I would probably prefer to keep the reference to the gospels in the first sentence, I omitted it in 3 out of 5 of my proposals in order to reach consensus with Smeat75. I admit I have not read Doherty, and only glanced briefly at Murdock regarding her Egyptian references, but even if they definitely state that Jesus did not exist (perhaps someone can provide those citations), they do not have the scholarly legitimacy of Price and Harpur, or the renown of Hitchens and Dawkins (and I have read all their books that I quote twice). As for Carrier, no-one here has read his upcoming book or knows for certain his conclusions, so I took my quote from Carrier's Wiki page which states his position that it is "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person". Having just read Ehrman 2012, it is clear he tries to discredit the position of anyone who questions the historicity of Jesus by painting their position as extreme or insane, and for that reason, I chose to promote his definition reluctantly. With that said, I think it is not an unreasonable compromise to include the word "likely" since it does not substantially change the meaning of the sentence and since it better reflects the views of Price, Harpur, Hitchens, Dawkins, and most of the other authors in this article. Can we agree on this middle ground? Radath (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem to be snippy or rude towards you Radath, I do not mean to be, you are a very reasonable WP editor who listens to what other editors say and revises his/her edits accordingly, I think that is very commendable. I do agree with Ehrman about everything, though, I'm not ashamed to admit it. There is no point in being asked for one's opinion if one is not going to give it honestly and I prefer your v4 to your v5.Smeat75 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should include a mention of the Bible here. The fact that even the gospels themselves disagree with each other on who Jesus was is a serious issue which further undermines the credibility of the Bible stories, but we could say "the Jesus of any of the gospels". Therefore I propose as follows:

Proposed (v6): "CMT...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as portrayed in any of the gospels, and that the historical Jesus had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." I think that covers all the bases? Wdford (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have mixed opinions about all of the proposals so far, including my own, remembering the point of the exercise is to find a definition we can all agree on and quote in the future. Although I originally endorsed Ehrman's definition as an easy solution, it has some problems as I pointed out last night, and may be akin to asking Bob Price to write the opening sentence of the Historicity of Jesus article.

(1) I believe that the mythicist position is one of skepticism regarding the existence of Jesus rather than a firm disbelief (as well as criticism for people like Ehrman who write from a position of absolute certainty about their belief without sufficient evidence). As I pointed out in my post at 02:42, Price, Harpur, Dawkins, Hitchens and Carrier (unless he changes his position in his new book) all use words like doubtful, unlikely, questionable and improbable, and as Thompson points out, we will probably never know for sure one way or another since any evidence that might have existed is gone forever. If we paint ourselves in the corner with a strict definition that Jesus certainly did not exist without adding a modifier like "likely" or "unlikely", we might need to exclude most of the authors and all of the scholars on this page, including Price who embraces the mythicist title.

(2) I agree with Wdford that it makes sense to mention Jesus of Nazareth and the gospels so everyone knows which Jesus we are talking about. Adding the word "any" just confuses the issue, since most mythicists doubt any or all of the biblical accounts, and most readers will not understand the subtle reason for using that word.

(3) I still think the last part of the sentence will confuse many readers. The message should be that even IF there was some guy who had a small cult which eventually became Christianity, he was not the person described in the Bible since someone mythologized or fictionalized his biography. Radath (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless we can find an established scholarly definition from someone like Price who admits to being a mythicist, here is how I see it: Radath (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed (v7): "CMT...is the proposition that it is doubtful if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, and if a Jesus-like character did exist, he was likely not the fictional character described in the gospels." Radath (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit broad, since it appears to include the mainstream view among critical biblical scholars that the miracles etc are not to be accepted as historical. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a thought experiment to help us refine the definition. Suppose that Robert M. Price is right that the story of the triumphal entry and the cleansing of the temple are a deliberately rewritten version of stories about the historical Jesus bar Giora. Does that count as an instance of the CMT? I think it should, and that bar Giora cannot in that case be considered the HJ, even if it were true that that's were the name Jesus was taken from. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I think its common cause that the gospel stories were largely fictional, and that the only doubt is around whether or not there was a historical Jesus-figure at all, which most scholars seem to think was indeed the case. Then we may as well go with the much-simplified Proposed (v8): "CMT...is the proposition that most of what is written about the historical Jesus in the gospels of the New Testament is fictional." This should then be followed immediately by the contents of the current para 3. How about that? Wdford (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It might just be my reading, Wdford, but your version implies (to me) that there wasn't ANY Jesus, instead of the Jesus of the Bible who performed miracles and such. I think through the revisions we've lost the caveat of widespread agreement of Jesus the man. I know I've jumped in late, so if the comment was covered above and I missed it I apologize for push the thread off track. Ckruschke (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I am re-thinking of stepping back from my proposal version 7. I believe in the gospel reference, but we speak of the questionable accuracy of the NT in the next sentence, so perhaps we can compromise with Smeat75 and remove it.

I think I can reluctantly live with Ehrman's definition if we say "Jesus of Nazareth", we include the word "probably", and we include the definition from Doherty that Ehrman is summarizing within the citation <Bart Ehrman, 'Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.">

As for the word "probably", I have been reviewing Carrier's writings, and over and over again, and he argues probabilities and not certainties, as do Price, Harpur and all the other scholarly proponents of CMT. Based on Carrier's blog from October 2013, I am quite certain his new book will NOT argue "there was never any such person as Jesus" or "deny historicity altogether" as was suggested yesterday. Further to my earlier argument, without a modifier word like "likely" or "probably", we might as well erase most of the authors in the article and only keep Doherty and Murdock.

I look forward to all your comments. Radath (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see Carrier giving a lecture entitled "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist" [13], walking past a projection which says "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist, Richard Carrier" and his opening words are "Why do I think Jesus didn't exist?"Smeat75 (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed (v9): "CMT...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth probably did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Radath (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks acceptable to me, but why don't we go with the Doherty definition? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought of using Doherty, Martijn, but it is a little long and flowery, Doherty lacks the scholarly credentials often demanded by contributors here, we would need to add several modifiers like "probably" or "likely" as I previously argued, and most importantly, it is repetitive with the existing second sentence which I like and have just added to v9, but I am open to suggestions. Radath (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about putting the word "probably" in there, although I don't think it is really necessary as the next clause says "or if he did he had virtually nothing to do"etc. I would like to see if Akhilleus and Bill the cat express their opinion. Thank you for leaving Jesus "of the gospels" or the NT out of the first line.Smeat75 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a productive discussion, and I don't have much to add. v9 is ok with me. However, I'm not enthusiastic about using "probably" in that sentence, because most CMT proponents argue that Jesus didn't exist, rather than that he probably didn't exist. And in my opinion when a proponent says Jesus probably didn't exist, that's a rhetorical maneuver, rather than a substantive one (i.e., they believe that Jesus really didn't exist, but they're stating it in a milder form). --Akhilleus (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If people don't like "probably", we could instead say "likely". As I noted earlier, NONE of the authors of whose relevant books I have read (and re-read) in the last two months while researching for this article say definitely that Jesus never existed. If anyone wants, I can provide citations that Harpur says "very doubtful", Price says "quite unlikely", Hitchens says "highly questionable", Dawkins says "surprisingly shaky" and Carrier says "very improbable", while others like Thompson and Verenna say they are "agnostic" on the subject since it is impossible to prove either thesis. There may be others like Doherty or Murdock who make that claim with certainty, but no-one has taken up my challenge to show me quotes that they do. Radath (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not hard to find places where Carrier refers to the CMT (he usually calls it mythicism) as the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Here's an example: [14]. Carrier may say that he personally believes that mythicism is likely rather than certain, but this is not the same thing as saying that mythicism is the belief that Jesus probably didn't exist. If you look at The Historical Jesus: Five Views, to which Robert M. Price contributes a chapter, it's clear that the other contributors to the book understand Price to be arguing that Jesus didn't exist. G. A. Wells' entry on the historicity of Jesus in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief says: "The more radical view that there was no historical Jesus at all is still vigorously defended by a few scholars, notably Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price." (In this entry Wells says that he once denied Jesus' historicity but has since changed his mind.) Earlier figures such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and John M. Robertson also argued definitely that Jesus didn't exist. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ï agree. I'd say that the CMT is that there definitely was no Jesus, not just probably not, and Price is someone who believes the CMT is probably true. Not the same thing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can only know what I read. Price in his 2011 CMT book says "I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus" (p.25). He makes similar statements several times through the book and then concludes "Let me summarize the major factors that lead me to accept the Christ Myth as the most likely hypothesis to explain the data. (p. 425). As for Carrier, the blog entry from 2012 that Akhileus quoted concludes with "Obviously, saying all this is by no means sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus didn’t exist," and the blog entry from 2013 that I quoted specifically states his position is to speak about probabilities and not about certainties. Are Price and Carrier being sincere or simply using a rhetorical manoeuvre as was suggested earlier today? We are all free to speculate our opinions on this Talk page, but in the article itself, our role as amateur contributors to an online encyclopedia is to report what they and other experts have written, and the more recent the source the better. With that said, most if not all contemporary scholars who we feature in this article make it a point to use words like "likely" in their writings about CMT, and, therefore, so should we.

As a reminder, I had suggested we take until Thursday noon UTC to discuss the wording of this important first sentence. There has been good debate, friendly compromises, and unless someone else expresses a concern, can I assume consensus? Radath (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my proposed wording excluded that Jesus may have existed as a man - that's why I used the words "historical Jesus". However if that is too subtle, then I am quite happy to expand on it. But I still don't understand why Smeat75 is insistent on excluding any mention of the NT - Jesus is only described in the NT, and nowhere else. The two disputed mentions in Josephus tell us nothing about him - even assuming they are valid - the passing mention in Tacitus tells us nothing either, and the letters of the early Church Fathers are derived from the NT with a lot of personal supposition added on. I feel a mention of the NT is a must. Also, while some CMT proponents do apparently believe there was never a historical Jesus, others accept the possibility of a real historical person about whom much nonsense was spun in the NT after his death. If we cherry-pick a narrow definition of the CMT then a) we are misrepresenting the CMT and b) we are going in circles, whereby some wiki-authors insert quotes that Jesus' existence is "irrefutable" thus the CMT is fringe, while other authors insert evidence that the gospel stories are fiction. Proposed (v10): "CMT...is the proposition that either there never was a historical Jesus Christ, or that there may have been a historical Jesus but most of what was written about him in the New Testament is fictional." This should then be followed immediately by the contents of the current para 3 to expand on this point. Wdford (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have held off posting until noon on Friday so we can find common wording. Although I see the logic and simplicity of using a definition devised by a scholar we all know, I realize the Ehrman definition has some problems. If we were to go with Wdford's "either/or" wording, I would be OK dropping my "probably/likely" wording since it is very clear that it is not a statement of certainty. I admit I still do not understand Smeat75's objection to a biblical reference, but if we do mention the Bible, I think we should say "gospels" since we use NT in the next sentence and since CMT proponents who still consider themselves Christians like Harpur and Brodie believe in a spiritual Christ described in the Epistles and elsewhere. For that reason, I think we should also say Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus Christ. I get confused myself by what is meant as "historical "Jesus (is that the person historically known for being crucified, or the wise rabbi who may have had some followers?), and doubly confused since the word "historical" is used twice in this sentence. Finally, while I think v10 has some merit, I STRONGLY OBJECT to following this sentence with paragraph 3 that explains that scholars outright reject CMT and endorse the baptism and crucifixion. It is one thing having such a prominent criticism paragraph in the lede of any article, it is another to make it part of an opening paragraph thus rejecting CMT before we have had a chance to introduce the three arguments in sentence 2 or the varieties of the theory described in paragraph 2. I only proposed a new opening sentence since we have already reached a consensus on the rest of the opening a month ago. Radath (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Para 3 doesn't say that scholars reject the CMT, it says that they generally accept that some sort of historical Jesus-person lived but that they reject most of the gospel stories about him. It comes back to the subtle difference between a "Christ Myth Theory" and a "Jesus Myth Theory". I'm not married to the idea, I just think that it would be good to clarify directly after the opening sentence exactly what scholars mean by "the gospel stories are mostly fictional". I am also happy to say Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus Christ - I used the word Christ in case somebody else wants to fuss over the point that the historical Jesus really did live in Nazareth. I am also happy to use "gospels" rather than NT, as long as we explicitly refer to the Bible in some form, although I don't think the stories in Acts are historical either. Wdford (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal v11: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed. Some scholars concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and are based on myths. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived as a man. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

There remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Wdford (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude or unfriendly or uncooperative, opinions were asked for and I gave mine, and since it hasn't changed, I am not sure of the point of repeating it over and over, but once again, I will point out that I posted a link to a youtube video above on this thread at 21:34, 19 March 2014, where you can see Richard Carrier [15], walking past a projection which says "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist, Richard Carrier" and his opening words are "Why do I think Jesus didn't exist?". Akhilleus points out that Carrier defines "mythicism" "as the idea that Jesus didn't exist".Mmeijeri also says " I'd say that the CMT is that there definitely was no Jesus, not just probably not." So that is three editors here for the CMT as "Jesus did not exist", not "Jesus probably did not exist". I was willing to drop my objection to "probably" if I was the only one making it, but that is not the case. I know from previous discussions that Akhilleus, Mmeijeri and I come to this question from very different perspectives and Mmeijeri and I are often on "opposing sides" but here we are in agreement. My perspective is from someone who is really interested in the clash between the "pagan" Roman empire and the early church, I am far from being any great expert, just someone who has read quite a bit of Roman history, and I know that there are no classical historians who have expressed agreement with "mythicists" that "the passing mention in Tacitus tells us nothing". That is not what historians say.They don't say "The two disputed mentions in Josephus tell us nothing about him" either, that is the "mythicist" position, and so the idea "Jesus never existed" is not only rejecting the gospels or the NT, but Jewish and Roman historians too, a point made by highly skeptical as to any event in the gospels John Dominic Crossan when he says "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact" and by equally skeptical Ehrman who "states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources, including Josephus and Tacitus." [16] I thought Radath's idea of using Ehrman's words as the definition was the best one, it includes the idea of possible existence as it says "CMT...is the proposition that the historical Jesus did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Also that does not refer to the Jesus of the gospels or the NT but the historical Jesus. Anyone who has read some ancient history knows that there are many figures from ancient Greece or Rome who are only known from a single reference in, for instance, Tacitus or Josephus, there is nothing unusual about that at all. When you find two ancient sources in agreement that is strong confirmation. I am not setting myself up as holding some sort of veto power here, I will accept consensus, but as far as I can see consensus as expressed is actually for using the Ehrman quote in his exact words, with a reference.Smeat75 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated many times, I personally accept that a Jesus-person existed and was crucified, but that the bulk of the gospel stories about him are fiction. Therefore, if we selectively use a definition that limits the CMT to "there was no such person ever" and then shoot it down as fringe, we invite the other side of the argument to reinsert the well-established view that the gospels are known to be BS. How is that an improvement? I would prefer not to quote any single author in the lead, as not all authors necessarily agree. I have no gripe with Ehrman, just that he does not speak for everyone on the subject. The fact that Ehrman happened to not use the phrase "Jesus of the gospels" is not significant, as Ehrman was using the line in a context which made the meaning clear - a context which we do not have in the first paragraph of this article. I think that Proposal v11 fairly represents the many nuances of the CMT debate, in a logical and coherent manner. Is there any particular line which Smeat75 objects to, and on what basis please? Wdford (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"a definition that limits the CMT to "there was no such person ever" It doesn't say that Wdford, it makes it very clear that there are two variants of the CMT - (1.")the historical Jesus did not exist (2).OR IF HE DID he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". It therefore leaves plenty of room for discussion both for proponents of "he did not exist" and "he probably didn't exist". And I keep saying that Jesus /Christ is not only known from the Gospels but Tacitus and Josephus as well, which is why Ehrman's historical Jesus is better than any reference to the gospels or the New Testament. That's what I think, if I change my mind I will let the page know, can people please now stop asking me about those points, endless repetition of the same points just clutters up a talk page. You could not use the word "fictional" in the sentence "most of what was written about him in the New Testament is fictional" unless you found a very strong reference that CMT writers use that word, "fiction" means something that someone has written with no pretense that it is the truth, a "myth" is not the same thing as "fiction", neither is "legend", neither is "lies", if you make up a story and present it as truth, you are not writing fiction but trying to deceive.Smeat75 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If Carrier's view at one time was that Jesus did not exist, I have emailed him and he confirmed to me that he argues "Jesus probably didn't exist, not that he certainly didn't," and that his upcoming book will use wording reflected in his October 13 blog. I have repeated multiple times the last two days, the other NT scholars who endorse CMT (Price, Harpur, Brodie) all make sure they use words like "highly doubtful" or "unlikely", and Thompson endorses Jesus agnosticism. If we cannot agree to include the word "likely", then I withdraw my support for any proposal (including my own) that uses the Ehrman quote. I know that Ehrman wants to make any skepticism about Jesus sound extreme, but that doesn't mean we need to give him a forum in the first sentence of a theory that he rejects.

As for Wdford's v12, now that I see this proposed re-arrangement and that the opening sentence would be followed by paragraph 2 (he earlier said paragraph 3 which starts with "Despite arguments..."), I thinks it makes a lot of sense and will support it, but I think we need to include a word like "likely" or "highly doubtful" in the first sentence as per Price, Carrier, and Harpur, and that uncertainty will make the following sentences make more sense to the casual reader. Radath (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is legitimate to change the definition based on fear others will declare the point of view fringe. The CMT is whatever it is. Still, I don't see how Carrier's "probably" matters. I'd say it merely indicates he is not completely sure of the CMT, not that the CMT itself contains uncertainty. In fact, all scientific theories are provisional, so then you could add probably to the definition of all theories, which doesn't seem helpful. It seems to me that making the definition too broad is the bigger problem. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Point well take, Martijn, but CMT is an argument of doubt not certainty, and without a word like "likely"' this very important first sentence reflects the views of Doherty and Acharya S, but not Price, Carrier, and Harpur. Radath (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I've followed your example and sent an email to Price to ask for his opinion on this. If he replies, that won't be a reliable source we can cite, but it could help us interpret things. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters if the word "likely" is used or not because, either way, it is a fringe theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well now this is exactly the kind of mindless comment we have been trying to avoid. There is no solid definition out there to begin with, so while Ehrman may try to define the CMT in a particular way he does not speak for everyone. What Ehrman is shooting at is actually the "Jesus Myth Theory" - Ehrman himself maintains that the Divine Christ was a myth, although he supports the existence of a human Jesus-person. I oppose cherry-picking a definition, and suggest instead that we try to reflect all the various points of view. Almost everyone agrees that the gospels are largely fictional, so if we leave the lead as it currently is then at least its accurate and balanced. If we try to fine-tune it further then it must remain accurate and balanced. Wdford (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I admit I am sorry I brought the whole thing up, especially since we have been so friendly here lately. But now that we have gone this far, I think we need to change that first sentence to include a word like "likely"' and I think v11 presents a definite improvement. I would be interested to hear what Price says. The nearest definition he gives is on page 25 of The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems: "I will argue that it is quite LIKELY there never was any historical Jesus" (p.25). I am waiting to hear from Carrier and Harpur. I also wish to remind everyone that we have successfully created a friendly atmosphere of late, and words like fringe theory are meant to be insulting and dismissive of other people's views, and have no place here. Radath (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have received an email from Carrier urging me to fight for a word like "likely" and pointing me to http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733. I would also accept "... that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist in all likelihood" Radath (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

With reference to Carrier's email, I agree with Martijn says above "I don't see how Carrier's "probably" matters. I'd say it merely indicates he is not completely sure of the CMT, not that the CMT itself contains uncertainty." We don't need to e-mail Ehrman, we have his definition, which Radath originally suggested, I think that is the best one no matter what Carrier or Price say. I wonder if it would be a good idea to get an outside opinion here, I think the participants in this discussion, myself certainly included, have very firm and rather entrenched views on this matter, it might help if we can find an impartial outside opinion, just on the question of the definition. Would others think it is a good idea to take that to WP:DRN?Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I submit that the first and second sentences of Proposal v11 completely encapsulate Ehrman's definition, although in different words which are simpler and more inclusive. The first and second sentences together cover what Ehrman believes, but to merge those two sentences into a single sentence would be unwieldy. I really don't like to use a quote in the first paragraph of a lead, especially when that definition is not universally accepted. I suggest therefore that we implement Proposal v11 already, with the word "likely" or "probably" added in where appropriate. The phrase "Some scholars" at the beginning of the second sentence could be changed to "Most scholars" if we feel that is more accurate. Wdford (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Smeat75. CMT is an argument of probabilities and skeptical uncertainty. I don't think that even Doherty or Murdock claim to have a smoking gun that Jesus didn't exist, as opposed to Ehrman who confidently declares that Jesus definitely existed. I have demonstrated that CMT-supporting scholars like Price, Carrier and Harpur all use words like "likely". For the last two months that I have been contributing, I have accepted just about every compromise suggested to me, even when I don't agree. I just don't understand how adding words like "likely" or "in all likelihood" radically changes the definition or harms anyone here. Radath (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support something to the effect of "highly unlikely JC didn't exist". And my main reason for this support is that in history, especially ancient history, nothing is certain 0% or 100%. It's all about probabilities. So, CMT supporters would say that the % chance he didn't exist is >99% (or something exceptional high), while everyone else would say the % chance that he didn't exist is <1%. What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am good with ..."is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels ever existed." To put this debate to an end, we could keep the whole lede as it stands now and just change this sentence.Radath (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Price just replied to my email. He wrote "I'd say the CMT is the position that no historical Jesus existed. The issue of "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory; rather it is a question of how firmly one holds to the theory. How sure is a particular scholar that the position is true?". That said, I'm not against including the word probably, though I think leaving it out might be better.

I'm not sure about the "as depicted in the gospels" though, as that seems too broad. Merely disputing the historicity of the miracles appears to be included in that definition. Hmm, this is getting complicated. Should we perhaps make a list of the objections that have been made to the various proposals so we can try to come up with a definition that deals with them all? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath says"I have accepted just about every compromise suggested to me, even when I don't agree." But you suggested this change to start with, I was agreeing with you. I don't understand why Radath and Wdford keep referring to me, Akhilleus and Martijn have said the same thing as me with regard to "probably" or "likely". And we have gone round in a circle here, I actually object more to "Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels" than anything else and have said so from the beginning, that is not an improvement at all, there is no "Jesus as depicted in the gospels".Smeat75 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably over-simplifying, but I supported several of the others above and thought Version 9 was good to go. Not to cast aspersions or derail the discussion, which I have largely/purposely stayed out of and seems very helpful, but seems like we are splitting hairs at this point. If we have to edit "Jesus of Nazareth" to make it palatable, then so be it. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes, I already said I would agree with v9 and would not argue with the putting the word "probably" in there but would wait to see what others said and Akhilleus and Martijn then said they did not support the word "probably" either, if they remove their objections then so do I.Smeat75 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It’s not just the miracles that are disputed – the virgin birth, the resurrection etc are also disputed (in fact virtually everything that makes Christ different to a Jewish prophet is rejected.) The only parts that are accepted are the baptism and the crucifixion, as the lead already clearly states. It’s wrong to say that "CMT is the theory that Jesus of the gospels probably never existed" – it is DEFINITE that Jesus as portrayed in the gospels never existed – some other Jesus probably did exist, but not the god-man of the gospels. I reject the assertion that "there is no Jesus as depicted in the gospels", as there clearly is – however inconsistent the various depictions might be. The point of the CMT is that the gospels are fiction – Jesus/Yeshua probably lived, but was not a god-man and the stories about him are largely false. The historical Jesus was not The Christ – that part is a myth.

In the body of the article Price is quoted as saying "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean."

I offer Proposal v13 , which is even more slimmed down:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus Christ as depicted in the gospels never existed as such. Some scholars believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived as a man. Others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. There is a strong consensus among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Wdford (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Under your definition, would Ehrman's view be considered CMT? Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus Christ as depicted in the gospels never existed as such" - nope, I'm sorry, that is not the CMT at all, that is the mainstream view. We might as well just leave it as it is now. Smeat75 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I previously stated I would supported WDford's v11 if he added the "likely" modifier, but there are several things I don't like about v13. There is no "likely" statement which is it the only thing I'm requesting. I am of two minds about the reference to the gospels' but can live without it. I think the first paragraph is now too long and complicated, but excludes the view of Harpur and Brodie about a spiritual Christ. I really don't like that the information about the strong scholarly consensus (with the half-dozen citations that will come with it) and the universal assent of the baptism/crucifixion information from paragraph 3 are now in the opening paragraph. I think it is too blunt and short for a lede, and I just don't like the flow as much as what we have now. I was hoping we were reaching consensus on v9. Radath (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with v9, but strongly opposed to 11 and 13. I also wonder about Brodie and Harpur. Do they consider themselves proponents of the CMT, or are their theories merely related to it? It seems to me that Brodie's view, while unorthodox, is of a religious and supernatural nature, while Ehrman's view is nonreligious. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I occasionally correspond with Harpur who never uses the term CMT (he wrote in 2006 before Price and others), but he never objects when I use the term to describe his views. He believes it is "highly doubtful" that Jesus lived, but instead believes in a pre-existent and spiritual Christ who lives within us. I have not read Brodie, but since he is still a Roman Catholic priest, I assume his views are similar to Harpur's. Radath (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I will offer a suggestion for others' comments. I'm not going to worry about elegant wording, just see if others agree with the general idea - "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Some past and present proponents of this theory state that it is probable that there never was such a person, others who put the theory forward state that Jesus definitely did not exist. Many proposers of the Christ Myth Theory suggest that even if there was such a person as Jesus,he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." I guess this makes v14.Smeat75 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Kicking myself that I did not go live at 12:00 UTC like I originally promised as we would have v9 now. Radath (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose we go with v9 now and see how that goes. We can always reopen the discussion later if anyone wants to. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support the suggestion of Martijn Meijering to use v9 with Ehrman's definition as first suggested last month by --Akhilleus and originally supported by Smeat75. Due to the excellent suggestion from Bill the Cat 7 (perhaps the first time we have publicly agreed), I will change the word "probably" he didn't exist to "highly unlikely" that he did exist. Wdford asked that we include the words "as described in the gospels"' (a move I would support if others would agree), but I think most readers think of Jesus of Nazareth as the biblical Jesus, and in the next sentence where we say "NT has no historical value", we could instead say "NT and its gospels have no historical value". How about it, guys? Radath (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that sounds feasible - please would you word it up and lets see what it looks like in black & white? PS How about we use the phrase "biblical Jesus of Nazareth"? (Neither Tacitus nor Josephus refer to miracles, virgin births or resurrections.) Wdford (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Homestretch for new definition

The following is the old v9 along with the rest of the lede for context with some minor updates to incorporate comments from virtually everyone over the last couple days. I've also included a couple new wording improvements, including a last-minute change in the last sentence regarding agnosticism to better reflect the views of the authors in the citation. As most active contributors have already offered support for the earlier version 9, I pray (euphemistically at least) that any suggested changes will be minor before I post at Friday 12:00 UTC: Radath (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed (v9b): "The Christ myth theory (also known as CMT, the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that the biblical Jesus of Nazareth existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament and its Gospels have no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical roots.

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Some "mythicists" concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived. Still others, including some atheist proponents, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of a historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case for "agnosticism" on the Jesus question as it is impossible to prove or disprove his existence, but that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic. Radath (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Wdford (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really do not like "biblical Jesus of Nazareth" in this sentence. It's very important to write this sentence in such a way that the CMT cannot be confused with standard scholarship on the historical Jesus, which holds that there was a human being, Jesus of Nazareth, whose life inspired the Gospel accounts, but didn't do the supernatural stuff like rising from the dead. In other words, scholars generally think the biblical Jesus is, to a large degree, fictional. I would much rather see something like "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the historical Jesus of Nazareth never existed..."

As I've already stated I don't think the first sentence should have any mention of probability, for reasons that I've stated above, and which I think Martijn has done a better job of explaining, as does the quote from Robert Price's email. But we can continue discussing that, I suppose--it's much more important to make sure that the CMT is not confused with mainstream scholarly positions on the historical Jesus. Also, the lead doesn't need to give "CMT" as an alternative name for the theory--that's something that's almost exclusive to this talk page, I think, it doesn't appear in published writing on this topic (unless I've missed something...) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything Akhilleus says in this post.Smeat75 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Heigh-ho, I was all ready to support this as I thought it was going to be v9, "CMT...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth probably did not exist, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" with a change of "probably" to "highly unlikely" so it would read "CMT...is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth existed , or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". That I would support. But unfortunately this is not v9 as the word "biblical" has been inserted before "Jesus of Nazareth" and that completely changes the meaning. It is no different from saying "Jesus of the gospels" or "Jesus as depicted in the NT" and actually it is not the Christ myth theory at all, it is mainstream, Ehrman, Crossan, etc etc do not think that "the biblical Jesus" existed either,nobody except doctrinaire Christians from Roman Catholic or literalist evangelical traditions thinks that "the biblical Jesus existed", that is apart from the issue of defining what the "biblical Jesus" even is, about which there is no agreement.If the word "biblical" is dropped from that and not replaced with "the gospels" or "the New Testament" or anything along those lines, I will support it, but cannot do so as it is.Smeat75 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

How about changing "biblical Jesus of Nazareth" into "historical Jesus"? We could perhaps also add the phrase "as reconstructed by modern historical-critical biblical scholarship". Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The reference to the biblical Jesus was a last-minute suggestion by Wdford and considering he arguably gave up more than anyone with compromises, I thought it was worth airing realizing it may not pass "peer review". We talk about the historical Jesus in the next paragraph, but as I stated earlier, I am still not exactly sure what that means. Did the historic Jesus die on the cross or was he Hitchens' charismatic rabbi wandering around Palestine who may or may not have lead a small cult? I recommend no adjective before Jesus of Nazareth.

To address concerns from --Akhilleus ... On the "highly questionable" wording, I can argue Carrier's email and Price's wording in his 2011 book vs. Price's email, and suggest we agree to disagree, but to move on or compromise since it does not negate the sentence, and contributors who are CMT opponents have won just about every concession they have asked for including a definition by CMT's biggest critic. As for CMT, I can remove if that is a concern. Radath (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed (v9c): "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament and its Gospels have no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical roots. Radath (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not object to v9c as given above by Radath at 00:16, 21 March 2014 being inserted into the article. Thank you for your efforts Radath.Smeat75 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We cannot allow the CMT to be defined by its fiercest critic. Based on a quick scan of the body of the article, Fraser, Remsburg, Mead, Wells, Hitchens, Price and Dawkins all support some sort of historical Jesus-person. Since some of the "main" CMT protagonists have said clearly enough that they accept that a Jesus-person may have existed, around whose name the myth was woven, it’s not justified to define CMT here as the theory that there was never any remotely-similar-Jesus-person, because that is clearly not the case. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. How then can we use a definition in the lead which doesn’t represent these authors as well? BTW Smeat75 still has not explained her objections to including the reference to the gospels. The claim that the gospels are not consistent in their portrayal of Jesus is certainly accurate, but it’s not a justification for avoiding a reference to the gospels here. I think it’s starting to dawn on some people here that CMT is a broad concept, and that one end of the scale is very close to mainstream – so close that Ehrman has to get quite artificial in order to justify a differentiation at all.

Proposed (v9d): "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is a broad proposition which ranges from “A real Jesus-person existed but the gospel stories about him are largely mythical” to the view that “There never was any Jesus-person, and the entire Christ-concept has mythical roots."

Wdford (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As promised, it is now past 12:00 UTC so I have posted 9c with the rest of the lede from 9b since it is better than what we have now. I also incorporated a previous edit regarding Ehrman's use if the word "Mythicism" by itself in his 2012 book. Wdford, however, makes an excellent good point which deserves further discussion once we have all caught our breaths. Radath (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Radath for all your efforts. I have also added that this definition is in fact the definition of a critic rather than a proponent, and that there are numerous scholars who hold a mainstream position who have nonetheless been branded as mythicists by the critics of the CMT. This is essential for the lead to properly summarize the article. The lead is getting bulky, and maybe could benefit from a bit of pruning. Wdford (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

This discussion is going in an unfortunate direction. Ehrman's definition of the CMT closely echoes that of proponents such as Doherty and Price and former proponents such as G.A. Wells--he's not being "artificial" at all. One problem here is that some of the figures who have come into the discussion--"Fraser, Remsburg, Mead, Wells, Hitchens, Price and Dawkins"--aren't CMT proponents. Frazer, Remsburg, Hitchens, and Dawkins aren't proponents, so their positions shouldn't be used to define the subject of this article. And the lead should not be written in such a way as to confuse the definition of the CMT with mainstream scholarship. v9d does that, unfortunately. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Smeat75 still has not explained her objections to including the reference to the gospels" You keep saying that Wdford and I have explained my objections over and over, which also apply to any phrase such as "as depicted in the New Testament" or "the Biblical Jesus". Perhaps I don't express myself very clearly, in which case may I refer you the post of Akhilleus (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2014, he says exactly what I think. Or try the post of Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC) where he says "I'm not sure about the "as depicted in the gospels" though, as that seems too broad." I was disgusted, to be honest, to see that after all the interaction and discussion on this page that the first sentence of the lead had been completely re-written to something nowhere near what had been agreed on, thank you Martijn for reverting it. I'm not feeling very friendly right now, it is not only one side here that has made compromises, I totally agree with Akhilleus, the first sentence should be "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the historical Jesus of Nazareth never existed..." It is not only me who did not want "probably" or "likely" inserted there, Akhilleus says "I don't think the first sentence should have any mention of probability" and Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2014 says "I'd say that the CMT is that there definitely was no Jesus, not just probably not". That is three people who say the same things, you cannot just ignore what we say because you don't like it. I was willing to accept "highly unlikely" if Martijn and Akhilleus did too, Martijn said he would, Akhilleus said he didn't like it but "we can continue discussing that, I suppose" and on that basis I accepted v9c, only to find that it had been thrown out the window and incoherent gibberish substituted instead, that is not collaboration arriving at consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In many ways I deeply regret suggesting a change to the CMT definition. For two months, I have been participating in this Talk page trying to improve the article through constructive collaboration and compromise, as well as respect for all views. Several people have noted here and on my talk page about how friendly and pleasant this place has become. Unfortunately, I admit that I even showed my frustration over the last few days. However, the new lede reflects v9c which received general support (with the idea that we re-visit the "highly questionable" modifier), and I think it is time to move on to the next topic. I urge everyone though to take a deep breath or maybe even a walk before responding to something you don't like. I will try to do the same. Radath (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Better definition found elsewhere

Everyone caught their breath? Now that I have posted v9, I have found the following definition in the first paragraph below in several places on the Internet including Wikiquote, Wikipins and Vi.Ki. The first sentence is also found at the Historicity of Jesus article and even in a Christian blog criticizing Ehrman's 2012 article in Newsweek. Given that several of these alternate Wiki pages have the same infobox photo on the right as we do, am I correct in suspecting this once was the definition in our article, and in the case of Vi.Ki, perhaps the entire former CMT Wiki article that once had "good article status" and was nominated for "feature article"? The Vi.ki version has a great deal of useful information that focusses on arguments with citations rather than authors, and the first paragraph of its lede is MUCH better and more representative of CMT authors than what we have now. The definition also has a number of citations to Ehrman, Wells and others that I will add later. Here is the common definition found elsewhere and how it would look if we combined it with our current lede. This lede is shorter than what we have now since it eliminates most of the current paragraph 2: Radath (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed v15: The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or the entirety of his life story as described in the Christian gospels. The most extreme versions of the myth theories contend that there was no real historical figure Jesus and that he was invented by early Christians. Other variants hold that there was a person called Jesus, but almost all teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references, or that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is a composite character constructed from multiple people over a period of time.

• In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament and its Gospels have no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical roots.

• Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of a historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case for "agnosticism" on the Jesus question as it is impossible to prove or disprove his existence, but that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic. Radath (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This text is from an old version of the article. There's a reason why this text was changed: it's not an accurate description of the CMT, and it is written in such a way that some mainstream historical Jesus scholarship could be confused with the CMT.

This text was not in the version that was nominated for Featured Article status. This version was, right after the article was promoted to Good Article status. The lead sentence of that version reads: "The Christ myth theory (sometimes called the Christ myth, Jesus myth, or nonexistence hypothesis) is the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person, that the Jesus of early Christianity was a personification of an ideal saviour or mythical being to whom earthly events were later attached."

In general, we shouldn't be trying to base our definition on old versions of this article or its mirrors. We should instead be looking to what reliable sources (such as Ehrman!) say... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Very much better, I support Proposal v15 unreservedly. There is no need to craft a definition of CMT that is distinct from the mainstream position, if the CMT does actually overlap with the mainstream position. Generally I am happy with what Ehrman produces, but you cannot allow a theory to be defined by its opponents. If Price and Wells are defined by scholars as mythicists then so be it - we cannot now exclude them ourselves so that we can get a narrower definition of CMT so that we can contrast it with the mainstream position. I would also accept a version that refers to "the Jesus of early Christianity" as well, although I honestly think Smeat75 is being ridiculous about her continued opposition to mentioning the gospels directly. Wdford (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: due to a missing closing bracket in a ref tag in Radath's comment that opens this section, my comment and Wdford's comment weren't displaying correctly. I edited them and tried to change the timestamps to reflect when we originally posted the comments--I hope I got it right, with the UTC conversion and everything.

Anyway, no one is trying to exclude Price or those works of Wells where he advocated mythicism. But their definition of mythicism is precisely the idea that Jesus didn't exist! Wells even wrote a book called Did Jesus Exist? and in an encyclopedia article (surely a good model for us!), he wrote "Denying Jesus' historicity means asserting that Christianity is based on a founder figure who is wholly mythical." He names Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, William Benjamin Smith, Doherty, and Price as exponents of this view, and says that he once held it. This definition and the list of figures who espoused the theory are bog-standard stuff: you'll find essentially the same thing in other books by Wells and other writers on mythicism, including Van Voorst. In his treatment of the history of mythicism, Ehrman is following the lead of others. And all of these writers are clear that mythicism doesn't overlap with mainstream scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that CMT is not like the Theory of Relativity that one scientist devised and set out to prove. CMT means different things to different people. For example, Strauss, sometimes known as the "founder of CMT", believed in Jesus and most of the NT, but was called a mythicist simply because he believed the miracles to be mythical. The closest I have found to a definition from a contemporary scholar who supports CMT is Price's 2011, The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems: "I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus" (p.25). Doherty has a more extreme definition and is not a scholar. Ehrman has a definition, but as WDford points out, one shouldn't be defined by one's critics. Ehrman also tries to paint anyone who questions Jesus as extreme or insane, so he is not an unbiased source. I am sure many Christians would be concerned if the opening sentences of a Wiki article on Jesus or the Bible were written by an atheist. The point is, there is no one definition of CMT, and as a supporter of many aspects of the theory, v15 it is the best summary of what I believe. Radath (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason that Ehrman's definition should be rejected because he's a critic. In fact, Wikipedia's content policies, particularly the one concerning reliable sources, tell us that we should opt for academic writing whenever possible (since they're the highest-quality sources on most topics), and on this topic, the academic writers are going to write that the theory is implausible. That doesn't mean they're incorrect about the definition--especially since, as I've already said, writers like Ehrman and Van Voorst are using the same kind of definition that one finds in writers like Wells.

By the way, Price's The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems begins (p. 17): "When, long ago, I first learned that some theorized that Jesus had never existed as an historical figure, I dismissed the notion as mere crankism, as most still do." On p. 421, he writes: "I have found that when the infamous 'Christ Myth' theory comes up, the notion that Jesus Christ was pure myth, not an historical figure, many people, already somewhat acclimated to the once-frightening notion of Atheism, are jolted all over again." So there's two passages from the same book you're citing in which Price gives us a concise and straightforward definition: "Jesus...never existed as an historical figure" or "the notion that Jesus Christ was pure myth, not an historical figure." This doesn't support the notion that it "means different things to different people." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Our article says in the Wells section that: "Wells writes that he belongs in the category of those who argue that Jesus did exist, but that reports about him are so unreliable that we can know little or nothing about him." Our article in the Price section quotes Price as saying "I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean." This seems to be saying that some key CMT proponents accept that a historical Jesus may have existed. Yes this overlaps with mainstream thought, but we need to accept that and live with it. Ehrman (and others) define CMT narrowly and then shoot holes in it, but that is not correct, is it? Ehrman can say that he thinks what Price is saying Price is wrong, but he can't tell Price what Price is saying. I much prefer the lead of V15, which is much more inclusive and which covers all the varied views of all the varied "mythicists". I wonder why that accurate definition was removed in favour of a narrow and unrepresentative version? Wdford (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Does Wells still think of himself as a mythicist? I think his current position is that Paul's Christ is derived from an earlier tradition of a spiritual Christ that arose independently of any Galilean preacher. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wells is very clear in his article on the historicity of Jesus in The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief that he no longer denies that Jesus was historical, i.e. he doesn't think Jesus was mythical. I don't think he ever used the word "mythicist" to describe himself, although he has written that the label cannot be used of him: [17]. He says that in works published after 1995 he didn't deny Jesus' historicity ("deny" is his word, BTW)

Wells also says that Price is someone who still defends "the more radical view that there was no historical Jesus at all" (pp. 446-447 in New Encyclopedia of Unbelief). Do we think that Wells has misunderstood Price? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Update email from Rev. Harpur agreeing to the use of a modifier word like "likely" (which would be less important for v15 since it would not be needed). Radath (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearly there are multiple definitions penned by actual self-identifying mythicists, who sometimes change their views as well. I think we should upload the proposed v15 first para, until this is cleared up. Wdford (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I for one would be opposed to this. I think we have a consensus for the current text, and the new text needs to get a consensus first. There's already a POV tag on the page. BTW, are you sure you want a POV tag, not a "dubious - discuss" tag? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm opposed to v15 and any lead which defines the CMT as a "range" of theories. This is a simple theory to define, and we have multiple sources, including those of proponents, that give us essentially the same definition--as I've already quoted Robert M. Price above, "Jesus...never existed as an historical figure" or "the notion that Jesus Christ was pure myth, not an historical figure." I think we should stick with the wording of these sources, rather than trying to invent something of our own, and as I've said many times, I think emulating the wording of Ehrman is the best way to go.

I'm also puzzled by the rush to change the lead in the face of objections by other editors. It's the kind of thing that ruins a cooperative talk page atmosphere! --Akhilleus (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The narrow definition is the way to go. I provided the citations that support this in a section below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

David Strauss

The discussion above drew my attention to the fact that the article said that David Strauss "is considered by some to be the founder of the Christ myth theory." The citations don't support this text. One reference, The Historical Jesus Question by Gregory W. Dawes, pp. 77–79, says nothing about Strauss as a founder of anything. The other reference, pp. 214–15 of The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, calls Strauss the founder of the "myth theory", but this has to do with Strauss being the first to systematically explore mythical stories in the Gospels, rather than him questioning the historicity of Jesus. In sum, the references don't support the text, so I took the problematic clause out. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's exactly my POINT. A reliable source calls Strauss "the founder of the myth theory", but a wiki-editor takes it upon himself to rule that this must surely mean something other than what it clearly says, purely because it doesn't fit the editor's own POV. It's like a skit from a Monty Python movie. Wdford (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, I've read a lot about this particular theory (and about historical Jesus studies more generally). I'm confident I've read more about this than any other editor currently participating in this discussion. So yes, I do feel confident in making judgments about what sources are saying, based upon the knowledge I've gained from my reading. But, you know, you can read too--the references that I was talking about can be seen in my last edit. I invite you to look at those sources and tell me why I'm wrong.

However, if your argument is simply that Strauss is called "the founder of the myth theory", I'm going to be very literal minded and reply that the source does not call Strauss the founder of the "Christ myth theory". So we shouldn't say so, either. There are, of course, good reasons why Strauss is not called the founder of the Christ myth theory. It's because he didn't question Jesus' historicity! --Akhilleus (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Akhilleus, statements like "I'm confident I've read more about this than any other editor currently participating in this discussion" aren't going to help your position. This isn't a contest and you don't know the background of the editors involved. Let's please keep emotions out of this discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed emotional; I'm not. I'm simply saying that because I've read a lot about this subject, I can make informed judgments about the sources. I think any editor who does some background reading can do the same, and I do think it would be great if someone would read the sources I mentioned in this section and tell me if they agree or disagree with my judgment. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the information from the CMT section of the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. They have a photo of Strauss with the caption '"David Strauss, the 19th century founder of Christ myth theory." "They also include the statement with "The more methodical writings of David Friedrich Strauss caused an uproar in Europe in 1835, and Strauss became known as the founder of Christ myth theory.". Although this page has other questionable statements and a pro-Jesus bias, at least they got the opening sentence right: "The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the historical existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.". Radath (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining where the material came from, but those are the very same references that I looked at today and found didn't support the text. So you've alerted me to the fact that inaccurate text is in another article.

The text at Jesus Christ in comparative mythology was probably copied from this article, so it's hardly evidence that one form or another of the lead for this article is correct. Wikipedia really isn't a good source for other Wikipedia articles (nor is it a good source for much else, I'm afraid). --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I just edited a section here regarding Jesus and comparative mythology. It is perfectly mainstream scholarship to comment on the apparent Christian cribbing of various motifs that far predate Jesus's supposed birth in the earlier Classical world and parallels to these motifs elsewhere. Exactly where does this article end and Jesus Christ in comparative mythology begin? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Refocusing on the definition in the lead

The 1st para of the lead currently contains a definition which does not cover the full range of positions of the various proponents of the CMT. In the cited source Ehrman – accepted by almost everyone here as a mainstream RS – quoted Doherty, whom Ehrman describes as "one of the leading proponents of Jesus mythicism" and as "the leading representative of the view in the modern period". Doherty – whom we all accept as a self-identifying mythicist – defines CMT as "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition". That excellent definition by a self-identifying mythicist was fudged down to something narrow and unrepresentative by some wiki-editors. Slightly further along in that same work, Ehrman notes that "Other writers who are often placed in the mythicist camp present a slightly different view, namely, that there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity …" Ehrman thus clearly states that the definition of the mythicist camp also includes scholars who do not deny the existence of a historical Jesus – a stance which is vehemently denied by many of those same wiki-editors. Yes this does overlap with "mainstream" thought to an extent, but its clearly true, and Ehrman the RS says so in plain language.

Seeing as how various proponents of the CMT have various views of the definition, I propose that we use the full Doherty definition rather than the selectively-abbreviated version that currently stands in the lead, and that we add as a second sentence – directly following after – that "Other writers who are often placed in the mythicist camp present a slightly different view, namely, that there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity …" . This is not different to what stands there now, but by un-abbreviating it slightly we give a much fuller, more accurate and less skewed picture of the actual content – and complexity – of the CMT. What reasonable editors could refuse such a proposal? Wdford (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"FWIW, Price just replied to my email. He wrote "I'd say the CMT is the position that no historical Jesus existed. The issue of "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory; rather it is a question of how firmly one holds to the theory. How sure is a particular scholar that the position is true?".Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2014 "

That's where people get confused, Price puts it succinctly and accurately. The position is that no historical Jesus existed (notice he does not say "Jesus of the gospels"). A few scholars past and present have presented the case that that idea, Jesus never lived, is definitely true, some others maintain that it is probably true, the vast majority reject it as not true.Smeat75 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That's Price's opinion, which we respect and include. However other proponents think differently. Ehrman - everyone's favorite RS until a few minutes ago - made this abundantly clear in a published work. Thus our definition must include those who agree with Price, as well as all the others as well, in order to be NPOV. Cherry-picking sources is not NPOV. Wdford (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are some quotes in support of a broad CMT definition with a modifier like "highly unlikely" or "doubtful": Radath (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Harpur's The Pagan Christ (2004): In the light of everything we have examined, can we say with any authority that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed as a historical person? I have very grave doubts that we can." (p.40)
• Thompson The Messiah Myth (2005): "Whether the gospels in fact are biographies—narratives about the life of a historical person—is doubtful." (p.3)
• Hitchens' God is Not Great (2007): "The best argument I know for the highly questionable existence of Jesus is this..." (p. 40)
• Price's The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems (2011): "There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer. If he existed, he is forever lost behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth." (p.23) "I will argue that it is quite likely there never was any historical Jesus" (p.25)
• Verenna's Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship (2012): "This paper, however, takes a position contrary to this and argues that not only is the position of ahistoricity possible, but plausible enough that it deserves more attention and more respect than it is currently given. (p.1) First (Ehrman) makes no real distinction between the types of mythicist arguments and instead lumps them all together, creating a ‘guilt by association’ effect that is neither appropriate nor reasonable. For example, Carrier’s arguments which are often sound and methodical are lumped in with the claims made by Acharya S whose arguments are usually poorly researched and lack in contextual understanding. So the mistakes of one are stretched across the spectrum, as if Carrier were making the same claims Acharya S does, which is just not true. (p.3) In the spirit of fairness, what must be remembered by all parties is whether the narrative is fictional or not, it does not change the fact that there might have been a historical figure upon which it was based; a figure lost to posterity. In other words, it is entirely possible that the figure of Jesus existed as a historical entity, but is not presently available in any of the historical data scholars currently interpret. But this should not be mistaken as an approval for the assumption of historicity about such a figure; in fact it proves only that the existing evidence—if this were indeed the case—is such that more doubt is necessary than is currently given or accepted."(p.10)
• Carrier's Arguing Jesus Didn’t Exist Should Not Be a Strategy (2013) : "I can announce one spoiler: in my book On the Historicity of Jesus (at the publisher now...) I conclude that, using probability estimates as far against my conclusion as are at all reasonably possible (probabilities I believe are wildly too generous), there could be as much as a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus existed."
• Carrier's March 19 email to Radath (2014) (despite what he may have said in the past or whatever his motive): "I am arguing Jesus probably didn't exist, not that he certainly didn't". Radath (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

POV Tag put on Lede???

Curious why it seems like above the discussion on redoing the lede is going fine and Wdford puts a POV tag on it. I don't see any mention of the why's or wherefor's so this would seem to be the opposite of collaboration. Ckruschke (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

He is well within his rights to put a POV tag on the page, as long as he explains why. I tried to add a new section to discuss why, but somehow new subsections don't always show up properly if I add them. I think we had a pretty strong consensus for the recent change, so it needs to stay until we reach a new consensus. But by all means, let's find out what Wdford's objections are. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have explained the why's and wherefores in depth - read the above. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I also don’t understand the artificial deadline that was imposed here – the status quo at that point wasn’t all that bad.

The information in the body of the article indicates that the debate is much broader than this imposed definition, which was penned by a critic rather than a proponent. I have quoted Price above, and it sounds different to what Akhilleus is quoting. There are others too – Strauss, apparently the “founder” of the theory, seemingly accepted a historical figure as well. However some editors insist on using a narrow definition, which doesn't appear to summarize all aspects of the article, and which appears to be biased toward imposing a certain definition that not all authors quoted in the article seem to agree with. Some editors are prepared to use a definition here which admits that various proponents have differing definitions, but other editors refuse to allow this. When I suggested that we state that this is the definition of the critics, and that the proponents see their own theory differently, that was hastily vetoed as well. Some editors refuse even to allow the gospels to be mentioned in the definition, with a ludicrous justification. A POV tag therefore sounds about right, until we either accept a definition that encompasses all the different proponents, or we find a number of proponents of the theory stating a consensus about a narrow definition of their own theory. Based on what I read in the article as it stands, that doesn’t seem like a strong probability.

Citing a list of critics of varying degrees of hysteria doesn’t help at all – it’s like asking Barak Obama to define how ethnic Russians in Ukraine really feel about being forced to live under an illegitimate Nazi government that has already started legislating anti-Russian discrimination. Let the proponents explain for themselves what they are thinking please. Wdford (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is a whole range of opinions, but my current thinking is that not all of these opinions are properly described as CMT. Does our current definition exclude any authors who self-identify as mythicists? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Who get's to decide on who is a "proper mythicist" and who ain't? Ehrman? Kenneth Feder? The pope? If Price happens to mention that he thinks there could have been a historical figure in the middle of the myth, who are we to tell him that's not what he thinks? If Strauss accepted a historical Jesus while compiling his theory, who are we to tell him that he doesn't know his own mind? Should Ehrman be the arbiter of who is a genuine mythicist? Or do we need to accept that maybe there is no hard definition of a mythicist to begin with? Wdford (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We could start by asking ourselves whether they self-identify as mythicists. Price does for instance. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Wdford - I didn't see quite the detailed synopsis above and now understand your viewpoint - eventhough putting a tag up IMO is generally done to either spark a Talk thread or upon disagreement of a thread conclusion.

With so many divergent opinions, I don't know if its possible to please everyone (or anyone?) and wonder in agreement with Radath from a previous thread that trying to redo the lede may not have been the greatest idea... Ckruschke (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I don't think the talk about Obama and the Ukraine is helpful here, still less any mention of Nazis. Nor is the distinction between the definitions of critics and proponents helpful; as I've already said several times, Ehrman is using a definition that is drawn straight from proponents--it's similar to things said by Wells, Doherty, and Price. (Not to mention the many definitions that Bill the Cat posted in the section above!) On the other hand, that means it's really easy for us to take a definition from a proponent--I've already given some quotes from Price and Wells that are pretty useful. Here's one from Richard Carrier, defining mythicists as: "those who argue Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mythical person, as opposed to historicists, who argue the contrary..."

David Strauss, by the way, is not the founder of the CMT. He's an important influence, and should be covered in this article, but the first detailed argument that there was no historical Jesus comes from Bruno Bauer, and I've always seen him called the first exponent of this theory. (And even then, he doesn't use the "threefold argument" discussed in the lead, because he wasn't using any comparative mythology.

BTW, can someone provide a convenient quote/citation where Price actually calls himself a mythicist? Not that I doubt he is one, I would just like to see exactly how he says it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman’s definition is drawn straight from Doherty – per the article, Wells and Price both accept a historical human in the middle of it all. Per the article, Strauss was the founder of the theory, and per the article, Bauer did put forward the threefold argument. We seem to be working on different planets here. Carrier certainly seems to project the “Jesus-myth” version, but that is not the only version. The problem as I see it is that too many writers have already made too many statements about too many different ideas, and for us to now claim the power to force authors into camps is a bit of a stretch. However the toothpaste is out of the tube, so now we need to find a better way of wording the first paragraph. I have made a range of suggestions, but too many editors are currently clinging to the narrow definition, which stance is not presently supported by the body of the article. I still recommend we adopt v15 for the time being, as a step in the right direction. Wdford (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see a single instance of toothpaste outside the tube. I'm not aware of any author who self-identifies as a mythicist who falls outside our current definition. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So tell me then – do you personally see any difference between the current "CMT … is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity," Vs "CMT … is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as described in the gospels." ???? Wdford (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I do. The latter is ambiguous enough to include the mainstream view among biblical scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's not ambiguous at all, it's perfectly straight-forward. However you are correct in that it encompasses many mainstream scholars as well. Ehrman seemingly describes Price as a mythicist, but Price's own beliefs are not much different from those of Ehrman. Does the mainstream not agree that "he did exist, but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"??? Wdford (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The "proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as described in the gospels" could describe the position of someone who thinks that the body of Jesus wasn't taken up into heaven but instead eaten by crows and dogs. Or basically any position besides biblical literalism, and that's almost every scholar there is. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a realistic interpretation of that statement at all, but to rephrase then - Does the mainstream not agree that "he did exist, but had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"??? Wdford (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it does, but it would be very interesting if it did. Do you have any citations that support this? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's after midnight here, but how about this off the cuff - "Ehrman says when historians focus on the life of Jesus, they discover a Jesus who is completely different from the one portrayed by popular culture or by religious texts." [18] Do the Jesus Seminar count as mainstream scholars, or have they all been struck off for incorrect POV? Wdford (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's another quote from Ehrman, from some interview he gave: "I don’t think Jesus wanted to start a new religion. Jesus was Jewish and he believed in the Jewish God; he accepted the Jewish law; he practiced Jewish customs; and he gathered Jewish disciples and gave them his Jewish interpretation of the Jewish scriptures. I think Jesus may have had a distinct understanding of Judaism and may have wanted to reform Judaism, but he had no conception at all of the start of a new religion—let alone a religion that was based on his death and resurrection." [19] Wdford (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've lost track of the argument here. Is that quote about Ehrman supposed to illustrate the idea that Jesus "had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"? Because I don't think it says that at all. Was it meant to illustrate something else? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, have you looked at the online debate/argument between Bart Ehrman [20] and Richard Carrier [21]? If you look at that link you will see Carrier summarises it as "mini blog war between myself and Bart Ehrman over his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, which attempted to argue against various scholars (both legitimate and crank) who have concluded, or at least suspect, that Jesus never really existed". Carrier is a mythicist, he says Jesus never existed, Ehrman disagrees and says yes, he did, that is the mainstream, it is really quite simple. You seem to be saying,Wdford, that Ehrman is a mythicist too although he doesn't know it because he would not agree that Jesus walked on water, for instance. That isn't what it means at all. Either you just do not understand the topic of this article or you have some weird agenda which I can't work out to re-classify the CMT as mainstream or that everyone is really a CM theorist or something. I don't know why you are allowed to veto me, Akhilleus,Mmeijeri, Bill the Cat 7 and possibly Ckruschke in wanting to use Ehrman's definition or something close to it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You are choosing to use a definition by Ehrman, who does not consider himself to be a mythicist, and which Ehrman claims to have summarized from Doherty, who is a mythicist. Let's rather just use the Doherty definition. How about that? Wdford (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK, here is a long article by Doherty entitled "Was There No Historical Jesus?" [22] Answer, no there wasn't. That exactly agrees with the long list of reliable sources that Bill the Cat 7 went to the trouble to find that just say "The Christ Myth Theory is the idea that Jesus never existed." Therefore I agree with you, let's use Doherty's plain words, there was no historical Jesus. I don't think we should use even the qualification that Ehrman puts into his second clause anymore, "Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". The first sentence of this article should be,as Akhilleus says, "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the historical Jesus of Nazareth never existed." No equivocations, nothing about "range of views", no "probably" or "highly unlikely". And absolutely nothing about "the Jesus of the gospels" either, it must say the historical Jesus never existed. There are more editors here supporting that than any other version, with a myriad of reliable sources to back it. I was willing to compromise with Radath and put "very unlikely" into the definition but after lonnnnnnnnnnng discussions, the version that was agreed on lasted mere minutes before you slapped a POV tag on it. Therefore I am not willing to water down the definition backed by RS anymore, if there's going to be a neutrality tag on the article anyway it might as well be for the definition that is supported by most of the editors working on the article, if I were the odd man out here it would be different, but I am not the arguing against consensus, you are.Smeat75 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the full Doherty definition, not your cherry-picked and misleading POV modification thereof, which actually reads as follows: "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition". That is at least a mythicism definition by a self-identifying mythicist, it is broad enough to encompass all the proponents that I am aware of, it mentions the gospels in context, and it mentions a historical Jesus. That should make everyone happy, yes? Wdford (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No.Smeat75 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? Why on earth not? Ehrman describes Doherty as "the leading representative of the view in the modern period", and as "one of the leading proponents of Jesus mythicism". Why should we not use this definition from a leading proponent of the theory, one so glowing extolled (and quoted) by your favorite RS? Is it perhaps because his mention of the gospels offends your personal POV? Wdford (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman himself writes in “Did Jesus Exist?”, that "Other writers who are often placed in the mythicist camp present a slightly different view, namely, that there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity …" Ehrman goes on to include Wells in this category. Ehrman has thus clearly stated that the definition of the mythicist camp includes those who do not deny a historical Jesus. How can we accept a definition that excludes all these mythicists if even Ehrman acknowledges their stance, and still pretend to be NPOV? Wdford (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"JESUS CHRIST, MYTH THEORY OF.

• The theory that Jesus Christ never existed.
• Bill Cooke, Dictionary Of Atheism, Skepticism, & Humanism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005) p. 278"

From Bill the Cat's list above, is that cherry-picked and POV also? Or exhibiting a degree of hysteria?Smeat75 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Very cherry-picked. That certainly represents some of the proponents, but not the rest of the range. When the highly-summarized Ehrman "definition" was uploaded in the middle of the discussion because of an artificial deadline I tried to insert the rest of Ehrman's discussion as well, namely that other versions of the myth-theory also exist, but you labeled it as "incoherent gibberish". If we upload a definition that covers some proponents but leaves out others, its not NPOV. We therefore need to cover a broader range in order to meet the NPOV requirement. BTW - did Ehrman actually make the statement that stands in the POV lead now, or was that a wiki-editor selectively quoting Ehrman? Just curious. Wdford (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually as it stands now it is not Ehrman's definition, it says the CMT " is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth existed" whereas Ehrman said it is the idea "the historical Jesus did not exist". "Highly unlikely" was inserted as the result of a compromise which was arrived at after long discussions, Akhilleus didn't like it, neither did I but I accepted it as it seemed to be consensus. I don't think it is actually consensus, I think most editors here think that the Christ Myth Theory is the idea that the historical Jesus did not exist, that is what the first sentence should say, nothing else.Smeat75 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually most editors here are not reliable sources, whereas Ehrman is, and Ehrman says clearly that some CMT proponents hold the idea that the historical Jesus did actually exist. Therefore if we are to adhere to the wiki-rules, the first sentence should say that the CMT proposes both that the historical Jesus did not actually exist, as well as that the historical Jesus did actually exist but not as described in the gospels. QED. Wdford (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think you are wrong, if the lead is changed to say that I will put tags on the article until it is changed to say "The CMT is the idea that Jesus never existed".Smeat75 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. An accepted mainstream RS author states the position, this RS statement conflicts with Smeat75's POV, and Smeat75 openly declares herself unwilling to accept the RS source and threatens to instead impose her own POV "or else". Please read WP:TEND. Wdford (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have always been willing to accept Ehrman's exact words. What it says in the lead now is not Ehrman's exact words, it is a compromise I accepted but you will not. I will not accept Doherty's definition or anything with any reference to the Jesus "of the gospels". Akhilleus and Bill the cat 7 have also taken this position, you are the one who is opposing everyone else here, not me.Smeat75 (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But Doherty is a "leading proponent" of the CMT - Ehrman even said so. What makes you think that your understanding of his theory is better than his own understanding of his theory? And what exactly is your obsessive problem with mentioning the gospels - its a core part of this topic, and leaving it out is what has hamstrung this article for years? Wdford (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Also what you refer to as an "artificial deadline" was Radath courteously informing co-editors that s/he was not going to barge ahead and make controversial changes without consensus, and was giving notice that s/he intended to make the edits at a certain time so that others could express their views first.Smeat75 (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, for the latter description of the CMT you are citing from Ehrman, you have left out the rest of the description: "that there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity, a religion rooted in the mythical Christ-figure invented by its original adherents." (p. 16 Harper ebook version). Ehrman here is not saying that just anyone who says, "the historical Jesus existed and this person was not the founder of Christianity", is a mythicist: He is saying that anyone who says, "the historical Jesus existed and that this person was not the founder of Christianity, and Christianity is rooted in a mythical Christ-figure and this figure was invented by the original adherents of Christianity", is a mythicist. Leaving out Ehrman's other two conjuncts (mythical Christ figure; invented by the original Christians) is not a fair representation of Ehrman's words. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Content Dispute

A content dispute resolution process has been started at [23]. Please participate and contribute to a resolution. Wdford (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion that some here may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Christ myth theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)