Jump to content

Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Revamping the "Criticism" section

A lot of what appears in this section is quoting from anti-CMT authors. Would it not be better to condense this into a simple paragraph which reads along the lines of:

In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Wdford (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't standard to capitalise the adjective biblical. Are you quoting a specific source for "almost universal assent"? Otherwise seems fine to me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean to condense the entire Criticism section down to a single paragraph? Or just a portion of it? If so, which portion? --Sennsationalist (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the entire section - at least to begin with. The rest of the current content is merely quotes from various anti-mythicists repeating essentially the same line. If we summarize it to that one paragraph, we can write it in Wikipedia-voice, and it should be relatively uncontroversial. What need is there to add more quotes? Wdford (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Re-reading the criticism section, it does largely seem to be various people repeating the same thing over and over. I would like to amend to "Nearly all modern scholars who work in the field of biblical scholarship..." I'm not set on the wording, but would like the statement to reflect that this viewpoint is held by a vast majority of scholars. "The field" is a bit vague/undefined, although I'm not sure if we want to call it biblical scholarship, biblical history, or something else.
Otherwise I'm OK with shrinking this section down, as it seems appropriate for this article. As an aside I think that some of the repetition among the CMT proponents could use trimming as well for the sake of clarity. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
OK then, so we are proposing a single paragraph that will read "In general, nearly all modern scholars who work in the field of biblical scholarship agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." Is everyone happy with this wording? Wdford (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that's good as far as it goes, but it leaves out the important fact that mainstream biblical scholars are contemptuous of the CMT and question the credentials of most of its proponents. In any event I think we should move the existing criticism section to a separate read-only section of the talk page, so that people can mine it for properly rephrased and copy edited material. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Grammatically it probably works better to go "...biblical account of Jesus. The only two events..." just to break up the sentence. I do agree with Martijn's point about CMT being treated with contempt though. I think we could make the edit and add that bit later though... --Sennsationalist (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section is repetitious. I'm concerned that the proposed language is too short, and doesn't capture everything that's there now. I will have a go at condensing the section tomorrow and see if we can meet a little more than halfway. Bacchiad (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my more conservative edit. I left in almost all of the existing sources except Robin Lane Fox, who didn't so much criticize the CMT as implicitly contradict it. I took out all of the blockquotes except for Ehrman's one about six day creationism, which I think is necessary for flavor. I think the result is somewhat less repetitious but still preserves all essential information (including contempt). No doubt some more pruning that can be done, however. Bacchiad (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus [Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 page 181], and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. [Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".] [Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6] [Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. 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.]

Nevertheless, Christ Myth theories find relatively little support from scholars. According to Bart D. Ehrman (a former Evangelical Christian turned agnostic who has written extensively about the questionable accuracy and authorship of the gospels), most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory.[Ehrman 2012, p. 2.]

Ehrman also notes that these views would prevent one from getting employment in a religious studies department:

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Maurice Casey likewise notes that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists" and "demonstrably false", and that "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".[Casey, Maurice, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching (T&T Clark, 2010), pp.33, 104 & 499.]

According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view"[Michael Grant (1977), Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels], further stating that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", and that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Although, it should be noted that several authors, including Richard Carrier [Carrier, R. (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Prometheus Books: NY.] and Stanley Porter [Porter, S. E. (2004). The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals. T. & T. Clark Ltd: Edinburgh] have suggested that such 'modern critical methods' have suffered from having some overlapping criteria, among other issues.

I think Lane Fox was a useful addition, as he is an ancient historian, but not a NT scholar. Also, the counterpoint to Grant was inserted by Renejs unilaterally, over the objections of four or five other editors. We do not rebut our sources, and certainly not selectively. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Martijn; I'll reflect those points in my next edit. It also strikes me that there are presently four kinds of things in the section now: 1) assertions of the historical Jesus [HJ] position, 2) arguments for the HJ position (e.g. opponents of Christianity never said he didn't exist), 3) assertions that HJ is the overwhelming scholarly consensus, and 4) direct attacks on CMT (e.g. comparing it to 6 day creationism). It's my opinion that 3 and 4 need to be covered here. 1 and 2 might not. Bacchiad (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Good analysis, those points are definitely the most important to preserve. --Sennsationalist (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering has re-inserted the Grant citation as it was prior to the edit war of Jan 4-6. In so doing, he has ignored the discussion on this page that the content of Grant's citation is no longer true (see above, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Grant.27s_views_in_1977_are_no_longer_true). We have so far four sections on this talk page devoted to the Grant citation: (§ 6) Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true; (§ 11) Grant 1977 assertion, edit warring, and refusal to accept up-to-date information; (§ 12) RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today? (§ 15) Towards consensus on updating Grant's 1977 paragraph

All the above devolves on one statement, made by the historian Michael Grant in 1977 (but actually quoting another scholar by the name of Otto Betz from the 60s). The part of the citation which Gekritzl and myself strenuously objected to were the words: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That statement may or may not have been true in 1977 (or in 1968 when Betz wrote it), but it is definitely not true today.

The RfC section above was put on this talk page specifically to elicit opinion on how people feel about the validity of those words by Grant. NOT A SINGLE USER supported Grant's statement. In fact, it is a no-brainer: the situation has clearly changed since 1977. Fr. Thomas L. Brodie is a "serious scholar" and he endorses the CMT. Richard Carrier also endorses it, as does Robert M. Price who has two doctorates, and also the Canadian scholar Tom Harpur. Anyone who thinks that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" today is living in a fantasy world.

This is a minimal test of whether an easily provable fact is able to determine content, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. The statement by Grant is clearly false. Therefore, can anyone come up with a reason to keep it AS IS in the article? Otherwise, it must be removed or amended to reflect the current situation.Renejs (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained it several times already, and so have others, but I'll have another go. Your objection would be valid if we had said ("in Wikipedia voice" as it's called) "No serious scholar has postulated...". But we aren't doing that, we are merely reporting that Grant said it, which is true, well-cited and notable. In other words the fact in question is not that no serious scholar has proposed the CMT, the fact is that Grant expressed an opinion on the topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Grant's view is out of date. The article is from 2015 and not 1977. Today the statement is false, and so it has to go.Renejs (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One more point: If this was a history article, you might have a point. You know, "We're reporting on what Grant said in 1977. . ." But it isn't. Even the info that the statement dates to 1977 is not in the text, so the average reader (who doesn't move his cursor over the citation) will suppose that it's contemporary. That's misleading--in addition to the content being false today. You can't have it both ways. Either this is a "History of the CMT" section (which it isn't and doesn't even try to be), or it needs to reflect the CURRENT situation. According to the latter criterion, the Grant citation obviously fails.Renejs (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding "in 1977" to the quote. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the quote is from 1977 (well, actually, from 1968 citing the scholar Otto Betz) but the CMT article is from 2015.Renejs (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Maybe some might object to this, but the talk page here as is is at 317K. Maybe we could archive some of the older comments, to make it less lengthy? John Carter (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. There are some instructions for the archiving bot on the page already, maybe the best thing to do would be to tweak those. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the details of the bot, so we may have to do some reading to figure it out. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do start a new page, I would suggest porting over BOTH Reference sections (compendiums of citations, #4 and 9), and also section 17 (Adding a fringe tag) which has the voting thus far on this controversial issue.Renejs (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've archived those sections which have had no comments this month. It isn't much, but it is a start. John Carter (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A Farewell to Grant

Renejs does have a half-point, although he is difficult about it, that 1977 was a while ago. We have more current sources saying about the same thing, do we not? In that big compendium above, no? Why don't we agree to use one of those instead? Bacchiad (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Grant absolutely has to remain, but I'm adamant that he shouldn't be edit-warred out of the article. That's a procedural objection. I think there are also substantive arguments in favour of retaining him. His is an interesting view because 1) it is representative of a large number of scholars, 2) his views show that it's not just biblical scholars (who might be suspected of ulterior motives) who dismiss the CMT in scathing terms and 3) that this is not a recent phenomenon. I can't shake the impression that the real objection to Grant is that he says something people don't like and want to see either removed or rebutted. 'I don't like it' isn't a valid reason for deleting something, and selective rebuttals are also inappropriate. We do not debate our sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Just about every assertion in the above is wrong-headed. To begin, this is a content issue, not a procedural one. Meijering, you have a long and troubled history of wiki-obstructionism when you don't like change and when your control is apparently threatened. Your talk page (before you recently sanitized the following comment out!--I have proof) showed this. You once held up the works so long that another editor complained to the admins, "we are all going [to] die of old age on this." That's not gonna happen with this article. . .
Content takes precedence over procedure, especially mythical procedural burdens imposed by a single editor. We already have a consensus. You're "refusing to hear" ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) The edit war was a long time ago in Wiki terms. Since then there's been an RfC over this matter, and no one offered any rationale why Grant's statement is still true today. Of course, it obviously isn't. So it has to go by already established CONSENSUS.
Your reasons for keeping the Grant statement are weak. They are not "substantive" (contrary to your characterization). Just because you find it "interesting" does not come close to keeping this obsolete indictment of the entire CMT in the article. Grant's is a 'benchmark' assertion--that's why we're expending so much energy discussing it.
You are wrong is asserting that Grant's assertion "is representative of a large number of scholars." I challenge you to prove this by furnishing us with "a large number of scholars" who say that "no serious scholar" supports the CMT. Oh, I'm sure you could find one or two conservative scholars eager to make such an assertion. But that's just more conservative POV pushing. It would require us to define "serious scholar" as a conservative biblical scholar. There are some here who are not willing to do that.
Finally, please don't think that I just want this Grant statement removed because I "don't like it"--as you imply in your comment. This isn't a control or ego thing for me (though I think it may be for you). I keep coming back to the main issue: it's not whether we "like" something but whether it's verifiable fact TODAY. We have a whole list of scholars now who endorse the CMT. One is even a Catholic priest. Another is an Anglican minister. It's time to put the Grant assertion behind us. Maybe he was correct in 1977 (that's arguable, BTW). But he's certainly not correct today. And your arbitrary procedural impositions, Meijering, cannot be allowed to determine the course of this article. Verifiable content will. You need to self-revert--on content grounds! Do us all a favor here. Paul B (talk) Renejs (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
This is weird. The above comment was by me, Renejs, but somehow "Paul B" shows on the signature line.Renejs (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I was removing the ref tags as requested by Bill the Cat 7. That edit will appear as mine if the "four tildes" were still in their 'raw' state when I saved it, registering it as my edit [1]. Probably created by an edit conflict. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (that really was me)
Oh, I'm pretty sure Renejs will have objections to those other quotes too. My personal favorite is how the CMT is equated with the theory that the moon is made of green cheese. I'd go for that one. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
One more thing. The full quote is this and it is still as true today as it was in '77:
To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to suggest a round of applause for Bacchiad for self-reverting the Grant "no serious scholar" statement out of the article. A lot of users wouldn't have been able to do that--especially when dealing with such a "difficult" editor as myself. Well done--and thank you, because we may have averted another edit war.

I was going to offer another analysis of the Grant paragraph here, but I'll spare everyone this now that the most incorrect element in the Grant paragraph is gone. At least one of the remaining elements (the "annihilated" part) is still POV and unacceptable. But I'm going to let that rest for awhile. We'll eventually need to talk that out. Talking's always better than edit-warring!

We have now on this talk page two compendiums (or is it compendia?) of citations. You all do realize, don't you, that BOTH compendiums are POV? One is full of conservative Christian bias (as is the Grant quote), and the other is full of liberal skeptic bias. So, just drawing from one compendium or the other probably ain't gonna fly, since Wikipedia's readers include both conservatives and liberals. We have to find a middle ground, and that's tough. How many times have you seen agreement between a born-again Christian and a liberal atheist?

For those who actually read these talk pages, we've already hashed out a "compromise" to the Grant paragraph above. It was in the article for a whole 2 hours before being reverted out. . . It reads: "The CMT has been answered by first-rank scholars but not annihilated. Very few “serious scholars” advocate for the CMT today, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the evidence--however fragile--to the contrary." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Towards_consensus_on_updating_Grant.27s_1977_paragraph) This is defensible from both sides and probably about as NPOV as we're going to get. It's got the majority opinion: "first-rank scholars". . . The minority: "very few". . . But it also notes that the evidence for historicity is "fragile" (this is probably the majority opinion in mainstream New Testament research). If somebody has a better idea, let's have it. . .

The alternative to a "compromise" passage is BLANK--no paragraph at all. This may be the way we'll eventually have to go. So, AFAIK, we have two options: compromise or BLANK (delete the whole Grant paragraph at the end of the Criticism section).Renejs (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, we have two different alternatives: the status quo or a new consensus.
Again, Meijering, you are "refusing to hear." We HAVE consensus! Nobody thinks Grant's statement is true today.
If there is no new consensus, the status quo remains by default.
So WRONG. We have a new consensus, which is precisely why the status quo must GO!
There is no way anyone can impose a change to the status quo without a consensus. Propose it, sure, but not impose it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
For the 3rd time: We've got consensus. Meijering, your procedural hangup is REALLY getting in the way here. Let it go! You're not going to win this by YOU trying to impose procedure over content.Renejs (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
No really, we don't. Full quote restored. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. By the way, can someone either delete the references below or move them to where they belong. They're annoying. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hermann Detering in Germany

Sorry, my English is very bad. But I want show to the actually proponent in Germany: Hermann Detering with this books The fals Paulus (1995) and False Witnesses (2011) - both only in German. With this two books Detering makes a great problem for the mainstream biblical scholarship of Germany. More information on this webseite www.radikalkritik.de Detering should stay under Notable proponents. Greetings! (I write from the german WP) --Valtental (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga

as a notable proponent from Nederlands. Show en:Wp and for more information de:Wp. I'm from Germany. I can't create an edit in English language. --Valtental (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to recharge

Hello all,

I've been badly shaken by what happened in the past few weeks and at ANI. The whole area of early Christianity and Christian origins has been a poisonous minefield for years, but so far I had been willing to put in an effort to help fix things. After what happened in the past few weeks however, I won't feel safe editing in this area until something like what User:Robert McClenon has proposed ([2]) is instituted. In the highly charged atmosphere surrounding this subject problems should not be allowed to fester, and good-faith but misguided attempts to do the right thing that end up doing the wrong thing instead should not be allowed to escalate out of control. People have been hurt by this, and that shouldn't happen. ANI looks like too slow a mechanism to deal with this.

For my own sanity I need to take a long break. I'll still check in occassionally, and maybe even contribute a little bit, but in the near future I won't be following this page closely anymore. A couple of discussions in which I've been involved are still open, but for now I just can't bring myself to take an active part in them anymore. It may take a long time for me to answer questions asked of me here, but should anyone want to contact me directly they're welcome.

I'd like to help with Robert's efforts, but for now I just don't have the energy anymore. Maybe after I've recharged my mental and emotional batteries.

I wish you all well, and hope to see you again more regularly in the future if Robert McClenon's advice is followed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the ANI thread Martijn refers to is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead is bloating

I see some editors are adding copious amounts of stuff to the lead - is this bloat really appropriate? Wdford (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I tidied up the lead still further, and added some links. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding a fringe tag

I'm hoping we can get to a new consensus on the fringe tag (Category:Fringe theory), now that it is clear it doesn't carry an automatic pejorative connotation. Can people list their names below and whether they support or oppose the tag? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From the tag page:

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work. Examples of the latter include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth.

Just seeking possible correction, as I think Martijn is referring to Template:Fringe theories and not the Category:Fringe theories. Am I correct in that assumption? John Carter (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was the latter, but I'm not sure. I get the impression the former is for pages that are not dedicated to a fringe theory, but give it an WP:UNDUE amount of attention. I imagine it potentially being used on the Historical Jesus page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: I believe that the template is a temporary measure for specifying something is wrong with the page, namely that it presents a fringe theory as if it were a mainstream theory, while the category is for articles on (notable) fringe theories that properly identify them as such and can therefore remain indefinitely. I'm proposing the latter here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean to add this tag: Category:Fringe theories (where there are 19 other pages), not this tag: Category:Fringe theory (which is the general category page). Note that Hebrew Gospel hypothesis links to the "theories" page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You may be right. I'm not too familiar with the details of categories vs templates and how they are supposed to be used. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think only serious academics count for the purposes of the tag / category. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The number of academics is proportionally small, and they are ridiculed by the vast majority of scholars - almost by definition making it a fringe theory. Your argument is very weak. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not correct. In fact, the vast majority of 'serious' New Testament scholars today have concluded that the Jesus biographies (as set forth in the canonical gospels) contain a large amount of fiction (at the very least). Only ultra-conservative scholars still try to argue for the historicity of, say, the so-called 'zombie resurrection' (Mt 27:52–53), the "darkness over the whole land" preceding Jesus' death (Mt 15:33), or the massacre of the innocent babies by Herod following Jesus' alleged birth (Mt 2:16–18). And these are only three examples of many that can be presented to any neutral scientific observer.Renejs (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct. It sure is getting difficult to AGF when you insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Peddling obvious falsehoods"? That's a pretty strong language, Bill the Cat 7. . . Actually, no serious (that is, scientific) New Testament scholar today believes in the historicity of the zombie resurrection, the slaughter of the innocent babies by Herod, and the "darkness over the whole land" preceding Jesus' death. You're saying that to deny them is an "obvious falsehood"--but your view is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. Yes, I grant that there still exists a diminishing coterie of faith-based conservative Christian 'scholars' primarily teaching at small Christian colleges throughout the Bible Belt, for whom faith is more important than reason. They will support you. They believe in the zombie resurrection. These are your six-day creationists and anti-evolutionists. I think it's time to call their bluff though--time to say: "You're spreading delusions, absurdities that have no scientific basis."Renejs (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right, most NT scholars do not accept those details. That's called the historical Jesus position. Bacchiad (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is not about a historical jesus. It's a about a fringe theory held by a tiny minority of scholars that virtually all other scholars ridicule. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that Bill's frustration is coming from the fact that you, Renejs, seem to be willfully conflating the argument for a Historical Jesus and the argument for a literal interpretation of the New Testament. This is a problem that User:Jeffro77 has consistently brought up. This article is about the belief that there is no historical Jesus (a fringe position held by a small minority of fringe scholars), not the belief that Jesus did not do what the New Testament says he did (a mainstream view held by most people, including liberal Christians). If you are purposely conflating these two positions in order to confuse the issue, that is extremely counter-productive. If you are legitimately confused, please ask for clarification, and take steps to educate yourself as to the distinction. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No willful conflation of evidence from the HJ article here, Senn. Actually, that never entered my mind. And no confusion here. . . But maybe you're engaging in one of the favorite pastimes of historicity defenders on this talk page: falsely accusing. FYI, in these discussions I try to focus on the verifiable facts available--not on behavior, protocol, AGF, etc--ALL of which have, incidentally, been violated by several users who have recently seen fit to attack me. (The latest example being Bill the Cat 7 who claims to assume good faith--in the same sentence that he imperiously accuses me of "peddling obvious falsehoods." Well, that's not very AGF of him. . !)
I'm trying to do my best to hold people factually accountable for what they write. that's it in a nutshell. And I think the admins will realize this in time. If a user writes something--and especially if he puts it in the article--then he has to be able to defend it factually. No more throwing weight around with vague, highly-loaded language like "peddling obvious falsehoods," or the latest from you, Senn: characterizing the CMT as "a fringe position held by a small minority of fringe scholars." Huh? Aren't you just possibly jumping to a few minor conclusions here. . ? First of all, "fringe" has hardly been decided by consensus, and in fact it seems to be going down (at last count the vote was 6 'support' and 7 'oppose'.) But you use it twice in your characterization: you call the CMT position "fringe" and you also call the scholars who hold it "fringe." So, you're already poisoning the well by jumping to the very conclusion which needs to be argued. And you apparently do this blithely, as a matter of course. Also, your use of the words "small minority" is an evaluation which could bear some scrutiny. Where should we put the growing number of agnostics, for example--scholars who are open/sympathetic to the CMT (like Hector Avalos and the European minimalists)? All I'm saying is: let's be more precise with our language, reduce the rhetoric a little, and do our homework before we mouth off.Renejs (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Rene, this kind of reply illustrates why other editors are finding you hard to get along with. You don't actually address the posts above. Most scholars who hold to Jesus's historicity do not hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. The virgin birth, the resurrection, most or all of the speeches - out the window. It's possible to oppose literalism while not being a mythicist. At least two editors pointed this out to you. But you don't respond to that; instead, you go off on two long paragraphs about other matters, partly ad-hominem. Make it easier for people to work with you, dude. Bacchiad (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems here User:Renejs.
  1. You claim that you are trying to focus on verifiable facts (as one should), but you have not demonstrated strong arguments that support your position. When I rebutted your arguments for CMT not being fringe in your "Oppose", you stated "I just gave my opinion," suggesting that you don't have a strong counter-rebuttal to offer. As far as I can see, the arguments that CMT is not a fringe theory carry very little weight.
  2. You say that protocol is not important to you. However, there is a strong consensus among the Wikipedia community that says we need to follow protocol. We can't just ignore it when it suits us. And in this case, I think that protocol is fairly clearly defined: a theory that is embraced by only a very small portion of academics, while the rest view the theory as ridiculous, should be clearly labeled as a fringe theory. At this point, from what I've seen, the arguments that CMT is fringe strongly outweigh the arguments that it is not fringe. Therefore, the onus is now on you and other CMT sympathizers to demonstrate why we should not add the fringe tag.
  3. Wikipedia is not about the number of votes, as you seem to think, but rather the relative strengths of the arguments given. No, we do not have a consensus, and I strongly suspect that we may have to go to an RfC. But I expect that on an RfC a consensus would be reached to apply the fringe tag to CMT based on the strengths of the arguments given.
  4. Lastly, many editors have found you difficult to deal with Renejs. You are correct in stating that WP:AGF is important, but I don't blame Bill for commenting that it is becoming difficult for him to assume good faith. Please try to give arguments higher on the pyramid in this diagram, rather than ad hominem. Thanks. --Sennsationalist (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like WP:OR to me. According to most scholars, there is as good evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus as there is for many other ancient historical figures. Also the fringe tag wouldn't really apply to that page. You seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of that tag. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the criterion is that there is hardly any scholarly support for the theory, not that we have reliable sources who say it's a fringe theory (it's different from WP:RS/AC apparently). But as it happens, not only do we have several reliable sources who say there is next to no academic support for it, we only have a handful of scholars who do support it and who themselves agree they are in a tiny minority. In addition, Bill the Cat has supplied a long list of citations that actually say it's a fringe theory. Jeppiz also dug up a quote from Dick Harrison who calls the CMT a "conspiracy theory". Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Need something else, pretty much like what John Carter has suggested above. I also think that this kind of category would make very known authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc. a fringe advocate. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree the category would make these into advocates of a fringe theory. I've added a link to the tag and quoted some of its text. Do you disagree that going by the text of the tag page, the category should apply? I find it hard to escape that conclusion, the text is pretty clear. If you agree, we should perhaps discuss whether the category itself is legitimate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
BM, what else do you need? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
"Minority theory" would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is such a category, theories that are up the scholarly standard in a field but only supported by a tiny minority of scholars fall under the category, per the definition I quoted above. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Without a clearer distinction between Jesus as a myth and Christ as a myth, this still would not be suitable. Only a third of the world's population are even nominally Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The article already makes this distinction clear, the lede defines the CMT as "the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.". We had a lengthy discussion about this last year, during which we considered many variants. One of the main points of discussion was whether we should make this distinction or not, and we ended up with this definition precisely because we thought the distinction was in fact important. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that it's also notable that a lot of CMT supporters are fringe themselves, purporting absurd theories over the internet (theories that go beyond rationality). Just because there are some fringe advocates doesn't necessarily make them the face of the theory. They may be the respected and scholarly face of the theory, but it's worth considering the general population that espouses the theory when considering whether it's fringe. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support And as for Dawkins, Hitchens and several others mentioned in the article, let's remember that at one point one user inserted a lot people who are not CMT proponents and cherrypicked statements to make them appear to support it. I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens (with great pleasure) and never seen them say anything that would have made them CMT proponents.Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In its current form, this article conflates the ideas that Jesus didn't exist at all ('Jesus is a myth'—a minority view) with the rejection of divine/supernatural claims ('Christ is a myth'—a two-thirds majority worldview, though it probably doesn't seem that way in the US). Without greater clarification on the distinction, it should not be presented as 'fringe'. See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias. (It is telling that this article is full of weasel words about the 'claims' of 'myth proponents' including some reasonable views in the Key arguments section, in stark contrast to how Christians fought 'tooth and nail' to not have the word 'myth' in the titles of Genesis creation narrative and Genesis flood narrative.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
See, above, the article clearly spells out the difference. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ideally, this article should clearly state that it is not about material that properly belongs at historical Jesus, particularly including the entirely reasonable view that supernatural stories about Jesus were invented later. Only then should this article be marked as fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was quite clear (in the article's lede, and in other sources) that CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. I think it's obvious that CMT proponents also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles, and isn't the Messiah (both of which presuppose the existence of a historical Jesus). If some sort of distinction needs to be made in this article, I don't see it, but feel free to propose an alternate lede. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Your statement that "CMT proponents also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles" is redundant, and somewhat misleading. Even the article title does not make the distinction clear, in fact it makes it worse. At the very least, the distinction would only be properly made clear by not emphasising the name Christ myth theory. The article should be moved to Jesus myth theory, and the term Christ myth theory should be indicated only as a secondary name it's also (inaccurately) known by. The view that Christ is a myth is not remotely 'fringe'. More accurately, JMT proponents "also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles" because the don't believe in a "historical Jesus", but CMT proponents include people who recognise the possibility of a historical Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fringe is like obscenity, we know it when we see it. The idea that Christ is a myth is not fringe any more than Galileo was fringe. Not only Dawkins and Hitchens but Albert Schweitzer, Will Durant and all the others. Wikipedia loses credibility with stuff like this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Per the definition in the lede, the CMT is not merely saying that the supernatural events described in the gospels are mythical, it means that there was no historical Jesus in any meaningful sense. Also, fringe in the sense of the category is not a pejorative qualification, the bar is that only a tiny minority of scholars (not authors) support the thoery, something which isn't denied by anybody as far as I'm aware. Galileo's theories were once fringe in the sense Wikipedia uses that term. Later they became mainstream. Plate tectonics is the standard Wikipedia example by the way: once a fringe theory, now a part of mainstream science. There is a subcategory for pseudoscience, and I would oppose adding that subtag, because there are a handful of serious scholars who support the CMT. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Albert Schweitzer did not belive CMT. Albert Schweitzer was a notorious historical Jesus theorist. I think you're wrong about Will Durant too; but even if not, he also believed European languages were descended from Sanskrit. Bacchiad (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The overwhelming scholarly consensus supports the historocity of Christ. The principle supporters of the CMT here seem to have tremendous WP:COI issues. Zarcusian (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
No, there is broad support for the historicity of Jesus. Christ is a separate theological claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You're well aware that for the purposes of this vote the terms are being used interchangeably. That's an entirely different issue. This section is to vote. Post your debate under the new section. Zarcusian (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to tell me what I'm 'aware of'. I don't care that some imagine that the terms are interchangeable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
And there's the problem in a nutshell, you "don't care". The opposition here seems to have some very serious NPOV conflicts. Hardly a surprise this article has an open ANI dispute. Zarcusian (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't try to misrepresent what I said. I am not involved in any current ANI dispute, and I have clearly indicated why the terms are not interchangeable, and why the article name has a bearing on applying a fringe tag.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think that it's very important to return the "Fringe" label to this article. It is clear that this is a view held by a tiny minority of scholars. Proponents generally apply hypocritical and inconsistent requirements to New Testament scholarship and textual criticism that are not required for other historical figures. People rely on Wikipedia for information. The purpose of the "Fringe" disclaimer is to alert readers that they need to read the article with a certain level of skepticism and critical thinking. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
By its very name, Christ myth theory is inherently about people who don't believe Jesus to be Christ. Whilst that includes people who don't believe Jesus existed at all, it also inherently includes the broader view that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus. The premise for the article is therefore misleading. This can only be rectified by renaming the article and shifting focus away from Christ myth theory. Then it may be appropriate to apply a fringe template, after the article text is also reviewed for misleading emphasis on Christ rather than Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a certain logic to that argument, but we don't get to pick the name ourselves. People like Price use the term Christ Myth Theory for the idea that there was no historical Jesus, not for the mainstream idea that the supernatural events depicted in the gospels didn't happen. Read the lede, there can be absolutely no confusion about what the article means by the term. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
If there is insistence to use a misleading title, then it is not appropriate to apply a fringe template. Further, this statement in the lead: "Some of these authors concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional" is actually entirely consistent with the mainstream secular view, and does not convey to readers that only 'hardcore mythicists' are being discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see what you're so hung up on here. The name of the theory that there was no historical Jesus is "Christ Myth Theory". That is the name that has been used by proponents and detractors in published works. I see why you could draw the conclusion that based on those three words alone, it might mean something else. But it doesn't - elsewhere "Christ Myth Theory" has been defined, and we reflect that definition in the lede. Perhaps clarification is needed, but as Mmeijeri has said, we should name the article as it is named in academic work. As an FYI, the article has at two or more points in the past been named Jesus Myth Theory.
As an aside, I don't see a problem with bringing clarity to the article by removing the bit about some authors conceding that Jesus may have been a real person, as that seems to be a sub-theory that is at odds with the theory as a whole. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current form. We had a long formal process on this talk page a while back, and it was agreed that the CMT actually has two different definitions - Def A: that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all; and Def B: that Jesus may well have existed but he was not God and he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Def A is opposed by a majority of the scholars who bother to get involved, and Def A may thus meet the definition of fringe, but Def B is virtually mainstream. I think the lead should state more clearly that Def A is not broadly supported but that Def B has a lot of support - I don't think the current wording is clear enough. To simply label the entire CMT as fringe, without clarifying that distinction, would thus be wrong. The lead used to be more clear about this than it is now. Wdford (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The B interpretation does not have a lot of support at all. Mainstream historical Jesus research doesn't say Jesus had virtually nothing to do with Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream scholars dispute the birth narratives, the virgin birth, the massacre of the infants, the flight to Egypt, the many miracles, the resurrection, the ascension etc. It even questions some of the content of the sermons as having been added in later. It seems that Jesus was a Jew who became a political threat and was executed for it, not a God-man who started a new religion. Some scholars obviously do still claim that the gospels are all historically true, but that does not seem to be a majority view anymore. Wdford (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In other words, they dispute the miracles and some of the contents of the sermons, but they accept there was a historical Jesus at the core of the gospel stories. Our interpretation B does not encompass that view. There aren't just two views: all historically true vs our interpretation B. There is a third view, which is clearly distinct from both views and that view is the mainstream view among historical Jesus scholars. You are conflating the mainstream view with interpretation B, and not for the first time. We had a lengthy discussion about it last year, in which you found yourself in a minority of one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Mainstream scholars dispute a lot more than just the miracles and the sermons, they also dispute the birth narratives, the virgin birth, the massacre of the infants, the flight to Egypt, the resurrection and the ascension. When you look closely, all that remains is "There was a real Jesus-person, who was baptized and crucified". That is not much different to Wells and Doherty. I'm not saying that the CMT is accepted by the mainstream, merely that there are two definitions of the CMT, one is fringe and the other not. Wdford (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
All of these except for the massacre of the infants count as miracles. Also, mainstream biblical scholars don't just believe in the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion, that's just the only part they agree about. There is no variant of the CMT that isn't fringe in the non-pejorative sense. There are several variants that aren't fringe in the grassy knoll sense though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear to the average reader that "all of these ... count as miracles". A reader might think that any of those events has some 'historical core', whereas some or all may not have happened at all, and this is in line with mainstream views. This is especially problematic if the article title is labelled as 'fringe' for stating that Christ (not Jesus) is a myth. For this reason, discussion about the article name cannot be separated from an assessment as fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless of course, CMT is unambiguously defined in the lede to mean that the theory that there was no historical Jesus at all. I really don't see what the trouble is. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It's unsurprising that the term Christ myth theory is more common, because there are more people who view Christ as a myth. All proponents of the Jesus myth theory inherently ascribe to the more reasonable Christ myth theory (that is, based on what the words actually mean, not merely what is 'popular'), but most people who view Christ as a myth are not part of the fringe Jesus mythicists. It is convenient to their cause to use the more rational title because it does exactly what is happening here—it blurs definitions, falsely implying a kind of legitimacy by associating their view with the more reasonable view that Jesus wasn't magical. On the flipside, it is also convenient for Christians to refer to the idea that Jesus is a myth as the Christ myth theory because it serves to 'discredit' the mainstream view (guilt by association). As such, it is in the interest of both biased groups to associate the mainstream view with the fringe view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a source that supports your claims regarding these definitions? --Sennsationalist (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Examination of questions to do with Jesus' existence is not part of mainstream historical research in the first place. It's the concern of a clique of Bible scholars who openly reject the standard evaluation criteria used by historians. That only a small number of those are prepared to say "hang on a second" does not make for a "fringe theory". All theories about whether Jesus existed have a weak empirical basis, but none deserves categorisation as "fringe", which is of course a pejorative, and highly misleading, label. Formerip (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, we do have serious historians who have opined on the matter. But whether a theory is fringe in the sense of the tag and its category doesn't depend on the number of scholarly opponents, but on the number of scholarly supporters, and it is clear there are only a handful or so of those. Also, it turns out the tag and its category are not in fact pejorative, as you can see from the category page I linked to above, and which I also blockquoted for easier reference. There is a subcategory for things like pseudohistory, which is clearly pejorative, and whose use I agree would be inappropriate, given that there are serious scholars who support the CMT or at least take it as a serious possibility. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not very sure we do have any mainstream historians (i.e. working outside the field of Bible studies) who have opined on this debate, except to criticise the field. I am certain that we don't have any in recent times who have published research or made a serious contribution to the key questions. It would be outside their job description, really.
What we have in this case is a peripheral group of academics, some of who eschew mainstream methodology and some of who prefer to stick with it. In that context, it is not appropriate to label the latter group as a "fringe". They are not, in the wording of the category page (which I don't incidentally, privilege over ordinary English usage) departing from the prevailing or mainstream view (because, in the wider academic community, there isn't one). Formerip (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the academic standing of biblical scholarship and historical Jesus research in particular can be questioned, but at best that would mean that HJ Jesus scholarship is fringe too (again, in the non-pejorative sense), not that the CMT isn't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
AFAICT, we don't have an article specifically on historical Jesus scholarship, so we can't really balance things by that method. What we have, somewhat scandalously, IMO, is a lot of content across multiple articles (including this one) that treats it as if it were uncontroversial mainstream work, so I think you've put your finger on a significant neutrality issue. Formerip (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one of my main concerns too. I've tried to mitigate this by adding citations to criticism sections, but I agree the problem remains. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
FormerIP, it is not Wikipedia's place to determine whether or not the majority of biblical scholars are biased. That sounds a lot like WP:TRUTH to me. The overwhelming majority of anyone in New Testament scholarship (including non-Christians) has affirmed the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, and your assertion that they "have a weak empirical basis" on which to make these claims is irrelevant. I would also challenge you to provide evidence that mainstream biblical scholars "openly reject the standard evaluation criteria used by historians".
I am not sure why you expect "mainstream historians" who do not work in biblical studies to have made claims on the historicity of Jesus. History can be very specialized, and those most qualified to argue for or against the historicity of Jesus will be biblical historians. I'm not sure why that's a problem
Lastly, among scholars and academics, the historical existence of Jesus is or at least has been until very recently uncontroversial. That CMT may be slowly gaining traction and popularity among non-academics shouldn't have any bearing on how Wikipedia treats the matter. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
We're moving away from the topic of this subsection, so if this goes on for a lot longer, we may want to start a new subsection. That said, there has been criticism about a lack of impartiality and a lack of methodological soundness in biblical scholarship in general and HJ research in particular. This criticism has come from respected scholars both inside and outside the field. I think it's a valid concern, but I don't see how that would affect the fringeness or otherwise of the CMT. Nevertheless it is something that should be reflected in the way we treat HJ scholars, although I'm not sure exactly how. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no hard and fast 'rule' here, and the "fringe" label could be argued either way, IMO. The problems with applying the label are, for me: (1) the CMT is under-represented by a 'nose count' of academics--after all, there is still enormous pressure NOT to endorse this view, pressure which includes loss of job and reputation (cf. Thomas L. Brodie recently losing his position). Thus, simply saying "very few serious scholars endorse this position" is not an accurate gauge of support. (2) The whole field is in a state of flux, and the CMT is on an upward trajectory (look at Prof. M. Casey's statement that "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist"). Thus, what is arguably "fringe" today may not be so in the very near future. (3) There actually is substantial support for the CMT among serious scholars. The section #9 above (Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT) shows this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT). Given these reservations, I would not apply the 'fringe' tag which, in addition to the substantive reservations noted above, also carries undeniable pejorative overtones (even if they are not intended nor necessary).Renejs (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(1) is a flawed argument. You're basically saying that because CMT is fringe, that is stopping it from not being fringe. If CMT is a fringe viewpoint then of course there will be prejudice against proponents of it, just as there would be for proponents of 7-day creationism, or an earth centered universe. (2) Wikipedia does not predict the future, we simply report on verifiable academic sources at the current time. See WP:SPECULATION. (3) 20-25 scholars through the last century is not a very large group in the entire body of biblical academic scholarship during that time. (4) We have established that the fringe tag should not be viewed as pejorative, and the possibility that some might interpret it that way should not stop us from following Wikipedia guidelines. Our decision should be based on the definitions of a fringe theory. Please follow Wikipedia guidelines instead of making up your own standards for what qualifies. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I just gave my opinion.Renejs (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wrote some time ago here that I do not fully understand the meaning of "fringe" in English. If it just means "supported by only few scholars", then yes. But if it has anything to do with "7-day creationism, or an earth centered universe", like some people mention, then it is obviously not applicable. To see this, it is sufficient just to compare books by, say, Price, Carrier, Doherty (CMT proponents) on one hand and of the book by Ehrman, who serves here as "academic voice", on the other hand. Ok, this is just an explanation of my vote, I do not intent to argue about anything. (I also mentioned previously that the quote of Ehrman in the article is far from any sort of scholarly argument or so. But maybe it is ok that it is there because it characterizes very well the "arguments" of the people who are taken as academic experts by their positions. It is their shame, wikipedia just reports this.)Jelamkorj (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I too would object to a pejorative tag that suggests it is like alien abductions. In fact, I previously objected to the tag because I thought that was what it meant. But if you read the page it links to, you'll see that it only means that very few serious scholars support it, which is true. To be sure, there are serious scholars who support it, but only one or two handfuls. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean a whole 6 "well-qualified experts"??? And do the two sitting professors teach at accredited universities? At any rate, that merely means that about 99.99% reject it. The situation has, therefore, certainly not changed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The above is just more of the "fringe" stuff you've been harping on for the last three months, Bill, which is why I've mirrored the comment here. It's time to pony up and put your money where your mouth is. . . You say 6 experts is nothing. OK, find us an article already tagged with "fringe" which has 6 "well-qualified experts" ascribing to it. If you can do that, well--yes, I for one will become much more receptive to your thesis that CMT deserves to be "fringe."Renejs (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

First, note the I put well-qualified experts in quotes. Second, what you think or what I think about the fringe/non-fringe status of the CMT is irrelevant. It's what the scholars have to say that matters and they reject it as fringe. Try to keep that in mind. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right only when it comes to conservative scholars. They have no trouble throwing the CMT into the can and burying it 10 feet under. More support, however, is found for the CMT in public institutions--those not affiliated by charter with any religion. Retired academics (free to speak out) and non-affiliated scholars (also free to speak out) are naturally also proportionally well represented among CMT proponents. (Even Fr. Thomas Brodie, who went public with the CMT at the end of his career.) I'm not sure if Avalos, Davies, Lemche, or Thompson would call the CMT "fringe." I think it depends considerably on who you call a "scholar" and who you sample.Renejs (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that that little composition right out of the conspiracy theorist's tool box is as good an argument as any for why both 'fringe' or 'conspiracy' theory is applicable. It really has it all, the accusation against 'conservative scholars', the insinuation that most experts aren't 'free to speak out'. This is the same arguments conspiracy theorists bring up regardless of whether it's Obama's birth, Obama's religion, 9/11, the Holocaust, UFOs, or Jesus' existence. There is always this big conspiracy that stop everybody from the few brave to "freely speak out".Jeppiz (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't it Ehrman who stated that openly supporting the CMT would prevent a scholar from getting employment in a religious studies department? Wasn't Brodie actually sacked and banned by a religious college for teaching stuff The Establishment didn't approve of? Wdford (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hrm, Brodie was a priest, hardly applicable. The Dominican Order to which he belonged apparently decided that you could not speak in its name and say that Jesus didn't exist. That's very different from an academic not being able to speak his or her mind. As you mention Bart Ehrman, he is the number one hate target of the religious conservative and openly challenges Christianity in all his books and speeches, yet he retains his position. Same thing for a number of academics who have openly questioned the very foundations of Christianity, all of them continue to work. So trying to insinuate some Great Conspiracy where academics must toll the line is only possible if one is willing to completely ignore all facts to the contrary (which of course conspiracy theorists often are).Jeppiz (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Uh huh? So when Ehrman says that most scholars who study the historical period of Jesus do not support the Christ Myth Theory then Ehrman is a credible and authoritative source, but when Ehrman says that supporting the CMT would in fact be a career-limiting move for a scholar then Ehrman is suddenly a hypocritical conspiracy-theorist. Isn't that a bit like cherry-picking? Wdford (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Denying the Holocaust would also be a rather career-limiting move for a history scholar Ceationism would also be a rather career-limiting movefor a science scholar. That does not mean there's a great conspiracy to silent such views. My point, which I must assume you deliberately ignore, is that it is fully possible (even common) for academics to publish books and articles that declare Christianity invalid and yet have a career in academia. The alleged "Christian conspiracy" is pure nonsense.Jeppiz (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that pure nonsense is to relate the works by Price, Brodie, Carrier, Doherty ... to some sort of "Holocaust deniers" or so. But it is very difficult to argue with somebody who does not concentrate on scholarly arguments but prefers bold offensive statements. (As I also mentioned previously, the Criticism section should summarize -scholarly arguments- why CMT is so terribly wrong, if such arguments really exist, and not some derogatory quotes of scholars that contain no such arguments.)Jelamkorj (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right, the comparison with Holocaust deniers was out of place and I've withdrawn it. They are motivated by political factors, often pure racism, and I did not mean to make any such accusation against CMT proponents. Very unsuitable, and I apologise. Still, I stand by the statement that I find it ridiculous to claim there is some sort of establishment conspiracy against CMT, when it's plain for everyone to see that scholars are actively "attacking" the very foundations of Christianity and still having distinguished careers as Bible scholars.Jeppiz (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Though I appreciate your apology about associating the CMT reflexively with Holocaust denial, such reflexive caricaturing is very prevalent. If you look at the citations specifying the CMT is fringe [3], you'll find no less than 8 associations of CMT with Holocaust denial. They include Bart Ehrman, Dennis Ingolfsland, Nicholas Perrin, Michael Licona (twice), John Piper, Michael McClymond, and Mark Allan Powell. That's totally inexcusable IMO and demonstrates how the CMT is reflexively demonized and deprived of an objective evaluation.Renejs (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Systematic POV violations

This article is the subject of an extensive POV-push by a few single purpose accounts and needs a complete restructuring. Some of the most glaring issues

  • If somebody disagrees with CMT, like Roderic Dunkerley, they are explicitly labelled "non-expert" and dismissed with. Meanwhile, almost all proponents of CMT are just as much non-experts but are given extensive coverage in the article. As per WP:RS, I have no problem with the article dismissing Dunkerley, but the same dismissal should be reserved for the whole gang of non-experts that include Rene Salm, Alvar Ellegård, Dorothy Murdock, Earl Doherty, etc.
  • In rather classic name-dropping, people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, none of whom even supported the idea that Jesus never existed. Trying to bolster the credibility is this way is just dishonest.
  • WP:NPOV is clear in stating that we can have articles on topics such as CMT and other fringe theories, but that we must make sure that even a casual reader understands that it's not a mainstream view, not even the view of a significant minority. Looking at some other fringe theories such as Holocaust denial or Obama is a Muslim, they satisfy NPOV by making the actual situation very clear. The balance in this article is very much skewed, with an overly long treatment of non-experts parading as experts and a very short (in comparison) criticism section.Jeppiz (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead clearly states that "there remains a strong consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived." I'm sure the meaning of this sentence is self-explanatory to the casual reader? Wdford (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Further to Jeppiz above, this article is about the Christ Myth Theory, not the Historicity of Jesus. In the Historicity of Jesus article an expert is somebody who knows about the history of that place and time, or a person who knows about the history and credibility of the relevant Bible passages. In the CMT article, an expert is somebody who knows about the CMT. Since Doherty helped to formulate the CMT, he is automatically a leading expert on the CMT. What he might or might not know about the history of 1st century Palestine is a separate issue, for that separate article. It has long been a concern here that people who know little about the CMT and who care less, are paraded as "experts" on the CMT. This article is about the CMT itself, including the history thereof, but it does also state clearly that most scholars of the history of 1st century Palestine reject most of the gospel stories but accept that a historical Jesus of some description did exist. This would satisfy most neutral people, so perhaps we need to question the agenda here in proposing that the proponents of the CMT be denied a mention in an article about the theory they helped to formulate, merely on the grounds that they don't have a PhD in a subject they don't believe in? Wdford (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the problems. There isn't a "strong consensus". Rather, the CMT is almost universally rejected. Therefore, The CMT is not simply a minority opinion, but is fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I have removed Richard Dawkins. He was listed under proponents without evidence, and so needed to be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. StAnselm (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove large chunks of the article without consensus. I'm referring to the Dawkins section. IMO he has some valid points which should be in the article. There's no consensus for their removal, so I'm putting this material back in. Anselm writes that his inclusion is contrary to WP:BLPREMOVE. In what way? Please be more specific. Also, Anselm writes that "He was listed under proponents without evidence." But there are several quotes by Dawkins (that's evidence) relative to the CMT which are importantly show that the theory has received attention from notables outside the field. Maybe the info by Dawkins should be attenuated or moved to another section--but total deletion (the nuclear option) is unjustified without discussion and consensus.Renejs (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy requires that he be identified as a proponent of the theory in reliable sources. Discussing the theory is not enough, since the heading is "proponents". The deletion is more than justified; it is required - did you read the policy? StAnselm (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And at any rate, citing Dawkins about Classical history is like citing Ken Ham about evolution. Completely wrong field, only inserted out of fandom. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the Grant quote more accurate

We clearly do not have a consensus about what if anything to do with the Grant quote, and if the nature of the discussions we've had over the years is any guide, it is unlikely we'll reach a consensus in the near future. Nevertheless there are a few simple edits that I hope will be uncontroversial:

First of all, our abbreviated quote is slightly misleading, as it omits the crucial words 'or at any rate very few'. In addition we could make clear (by using apostrophes in appropriate places) where Grant is citing other scholars and where he is speaking in his own voice. Finally, we could add the words "in 1977" to avoid any impression this was a recent criticism. Similar time indications could be added to other quotes if necessary, but let's start here.

I'm hoping that we'll at least be making some small amount of progress, as well as demonstrating how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What do you say? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clap clap. After two weeks of tussling we're finally abandoning the "short form" of the Grant statement! The glacier has moved. . . "Slightly misleading" is, umm, a slight understatement--try: "outright false."
I'm not in favor of attempting a convoluted resurrection of the Grant paragraph--even with the many 'bandaid' provisions you note ([1] adding a date--actually multiple dates; [2] adding citation markers to secondary sources; [3] adding "critical" words). Practically every part of the Grant paragraph is false and must be jettisoned. We haven't even started discussing the various parts of that factually unsupportable paragraph. For example, I have problems with the first assertion: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." This is very questionable. At the very least, a consensus would have to be determined here. Secondly, the word "annihilated" is pure POV and untrue. A more moderate word like "answered" needs to go there. Thirdly, the evidence against the CMT is not "very abundant." This is grossly unsustainable, as a reading of the above section, "Scholarly Citations Supporting the CMT" shows. Finally, the additional words "or at least very few" qualifies a false main clause ("no serious scholar"). The problem is in the main clause and is not overcome by those additional words which begin with "OR". There is no "or" about it in 2015: the main clause is itself false.
ISTM that this colossal refusal to part with the very imperfect Grant paragraph owes to the fact that many people simply like it. It confirms the ultra-conservative position on the CMT very nicely. But liking something is not a reason to keep it. Each statement must be verified on its own right, and it must be NPOV, whether we like it or not. We've already discussed a "compromise" paragraph. For some reason, that isn't getting the attention I think it deserves. Maybe it's time will come. . .
The only way I see keeping the Grant paragraph (as stated in the book, not our false, pruned "status quo" version) is if we wanted to contrast the situation in 1977 with that in 2015. This would be a whole different kettle of fish, one which nobody's talked about. I doubt there would be much interest in this possibility, which would probably require a new section dealing with "The CMT through history" or some such.Renejs (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You are again misrepresenting my position. I've never argued in favour of the shortened version, and I had already argued for extending the quote and adding the 'in 1977'. I have no objection to changes in general, but together with several others I objected to the specific changes you made. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
What "specific changes" did I make that you are objecting to?Renejs (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Removal of the "no serious scholar" part and adding the "However, it should be noted" rebuttal. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You're a loose cannon, Meijering. You've got the wrong person! I didn't add the 30 words beginning "Although, it should be noted. . ." That was added on January 5 by user 122.106.82.185 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641062864&oldid=640980043). How can anybody make headway with you if you're not able to be objective?
You also have a RIGID "refusal to hear." I already informed you of this, that I've added NO words at all to the CMT article. That was only two days ago on the ANI page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=643158073). I wrote: "I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. . . " What part of that do you not understand? Stop falsely accusing me of things I didn't do!
You most certainly did add a rebuttal here: [4]. I believe the most recent rebuttal was an edited version of it, but even if it's not I'm opposed to adding selective rebuttals in general as it violates WP:NPOV and / or WP:SYNTH. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
To recap for everybody: My SOLE activity in this whole brouhaha has been to REMOVE 11 words from the Grant statement at the end of the Criticism section. You know the words well: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That was on Jan. 6. Now those words are back in because yesterday Meijering put them back. So, after ALL the discussion on the Talk page, multiples sections, an RfC, etc. etc., we're BACK where we started. . . That's vintage Meijering for you! And that's unacceptable to me.
Too bad, but WP:CONSENSUS is Wikipedia policy. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've given discussion a really good go, folks. Obviously it hasn't been enough. It's clear to me that a lot of you follow Meijering's lead, and that he's become a self-appointed 'policeman' on the beat. Nothing goes in or out of the article without his OK, which he calls "consensus"--but only HE determines when that consensus is attained. . . if EVER! I now understand how it works. Thanks for the education.
No one has a veto, decisions are made by consensus, not by unanimity. Four or five editors have objected to your edit, not just me, so there clearly is no consensus for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A number of you are blocking critical new information from entering the CMT article. That's obvious. You're insisting on a 1977 status quo, one chock full of POV. OK, here's the deal to everybody reading this: I'm going to do whatever it takes to break that embargo on new information and on NPOV. If it takes another edit war. Several edit wars. Or edit warring forever. If I get banned in the process, so be it. I'm acting on principle here, and know that Wikipedia will be the beneficiary.
How about following the rules for a while, and appealing to a conflict resolution board instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, there are wiki rules. But there's also "Ignore the rules" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means). "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” The objectivity and integrity of Wikipedia are at stake here, folks. Loosen up, and allow Jesus mythicism a place at the table. After all, this is the "CMT" article.Renejs (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I would be for the first two suggestions but not the last ('77) because it implies that the situation has changed. It was a fringe theory back then and it still is today, with virtually no one supporting it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Bill, I beg to differ. The situation in 2015 is not at all the same as in 1977. Invoking the controversial word "fringe" isn't adequate. Most of the "serious scholars" today (OK, there aren't many of them--I'll grant you that!) weren't known to Grant. I don't see how we can use his 1977 view today.Renejs (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No objections here to either change, although, maybe, it might not be bad to maybe start that whole paragraph, "In 1977 classical historian Michael Grant..." as that might be the shortest way to include all the material, and give emphasis to its timing. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bill, does this address your objection? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't have too much objection to JC's '77 suggestion. What I'm almost certain that is going to happen, however, is that Rene is going use that to say something on the order of "that was then, but now it's more widely supported although still only a minority of scholars". And that is certainly not true. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Your offhand conviction is totally false and even offensive. (DO you wonder why I'm so irritating? It's because I have to deal with so much BS on this talk page.) You know, they say that if you're looking for stones you won't see the flowers. . . So, if you don't like the CMT, there's a good chance you won't see evidence for it right in front of your face. In fact, there HAS been a considerable increase in the CMT in the last few decades, especially since 2000. I'm surprised I have to even note this. The names have now come up repeatedly: Brodie, Carrier, Price, Harpur. . . But don't take my word for it. You probably haven't spent much time with the reference section "Scholarly Citations" in support of the CMT, but if you read only THE VERY FIRST CITATION, you would learn that Maurice Casey PhD (not a mythicist, BTW) complains that "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist." This was at the beginning of Casey's recent book against mythicism. So, hello, Bill! Reality check strongly desired. . .Renejs (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I rest my case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I'd like to ask Renejs if he really objects to restoring the full Grant quote as an interim measure. This would include the apostrophes surrounding the embedded quotes and the words "at any rate...", and add the words "in 1977" to the text introducing the quote. It would not entail agreement with this as the final version, and would not stop him from continuing to argue for deletion of the entire paragraph, or from adding POV, dubious or other applicable tags, or from appealing to a conflict resolution board. I strongly prefer the more complete version, but I can't very well insert it over Renejs's objection, at least not until we have a consensus, which we do not yet have. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been such a long wrangle over the definition of "expert vs non-expert", I think it would benefit the encyclopedia to reword the sentence "quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion" to read "quoting author Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion". Otherwise I can live with the Grant statement as it has been corrected - it is clearly wrong, but by quoting it in full and stating clearly that it is 40 years old, it accurately reflects the source and the reader can see how old it is and what it's made of. Wdford (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've mirrored Wdford's remark here because it goes beyond the RfC section below. That RfC remains open for anyone to comment on whether the CMT has been "annihilated" or not.
I think "author" is too broad. Dunkerley was a Christian apologist who wrote non-scholarly books, including novels--a sort of minor C.S. Lewis. I would therefore prefer: "quoting Christian apologist Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion".
Wdford writes that the Grant citation "is clearly wrong." I agree, as do Anthony and some other users. One reason the Grant citation is wrong (there are many reasons IMO) is that it does not reflect the situation today. It is misleading and false to include an opinion from 1977 in a contemporary article without providing some updating material. In other words, we have a choice: either we jettison Grant entirely or we update him as necessary.
The case with "annihilated" shows this. In the RfC no one has stepped forward to defend Grant on this score by claiming that the CMT actually has been "annihilated" today. Of course, that would be ridiculous, given that some scholars publicly endorse it. Carrier has summarized the current situation well: "There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them" (Bible and Interpretation, August 2014.)
Wikipedia has a policy of "not arguing with the source," but it also provides the opportunity to give balancing and alternative views from expert sources. Carrier is such an expert, and he is contemporary. Therefore--since some of us insist on keeping Grant's 1977 citation--I move that we add Carrier's more recent view. And make no mistake about it--Carrier IS an expert on the CMT. He is undoubtedly the best qualified person alive to produce the statement quoted above. So, what I propose, at this point in our discussion, is the following paragraph at the close of the Criticism section:

Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant asserted, quoting Christian apologist Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion and Otto Betz's 1968 opinion, that the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars' [Dunkerley]. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' [Betz] — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[214][215][216] The current situation is somewhat different, as mythicist Richard Carrier notes: "There are at least six well-qualified experts, including two sitting professors, two retired professors, and two independent scholars with Ph.D.’s in relevant fields, who have recently gone on public record as doubting whether there really was a historical Jesus. I am one of them" (Bible and Interpretation, August 2014).

Renejs (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean a whole 6 "well-qualified experts"??? And do the two sitting professors teach at accredited universities? At any rate, that merely means that about 99.99% reject it. The situation has, therefore, certainly not changed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, the reader now has an accurate version of what Grant wrote. But, of course, several of us wonder what we're still doing with this 1977 statement by Grant. Anyway, the "annihilated" part is incorrect today, so that either needs to be deleted or updated. Remember, this isn't a history of the CMT section, so we can't just give a (now incorrect) 1977 opinion without an update to reflect the current situation. I made a proposal (2 paragraphs up) adding Carrier's statement showing that the CMT is certainly not "annihilated." There's been no feedback on that. If someone has another suggestion, let us know. Otherwise, I propose we put in the paragraph as it reads above.Renejs (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, how could I ignore Bill the Cat's statement that 99.99% of (whom?) reject the CMT. What we're addressing here is that the CMT has not been "annihilated."Renejs (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You do a fine job of ignoring what virtually all scholars have to say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm entirely aware that the vast majority of scholars don't espouse the CMT ("virtually all" is too strong, IMO). What you are ignoring is that's not what we're talking about here. The issue at hand is that the CMT has not been "annihilated." Got it? No one has countered this. Therefore, this part of Grant needs updating--as per the above. Renejs (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the CMT is compared to the theory that the moon is made of green cheese then, yes, it has been annihilated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill, I don't share your sense of humor, and I take this very seriously. Comparing the CMT to the moon made of green cheese doesn't cut it, and I consider that an insult. Anyone who thinks the CMT has been "annihilated" is in deep denial. Your revert is pure obstructionism. Of course, we're not going to allow a refusal to accept a simple fact hold this entire community hostage. The CMT has obviously not been "annihilated"--as Carrier's quote makes clear and as other users have noted already on this talk page.

On the edit summary you noted no "consensus." This was precisely the problem we had with Meijering in the recent ANI proceedings--he insisted on a consensus for removal of material which was clearly false. He was proven wrong. You're doing the same thing in reverse--insisting on a consensus to add material which is clearly true (the Carrier quote)--and also clearly necessary, because the Grant "annihilated" part is now false (and it was never true--see the section on this talk page dedicated to "annihilated" for more. . .). BTW, the Grant quote does not itself enjoy anything like a consensus.

Requiring a consensus works both ways. It's a both or neither situation: Grant + update, or no Grant. We've shown that the very old Grant quote cannot stand alone. The bottom line is that if some of us won't accept the Carrier quote, then some of us won't accept the Grant quote. The Carrier simply balances the false "annihilation" in the Grant. People can always suggest another formulation, expansion, etc., now or later, but nobody's done so thus far.

I hope all of this isn't too complex for you. You need to come up with something more constructive than "green cheese"--or self revert.Renejs (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 has reverted the Carrier quote twice in two days. That quote has consensus for it was on this talk page days ago and no one objected--not even Bill. He simply says that belief in the CMT is like "the theory that the moon is made out of green cheese"--a very POV opinion, and he maintains on this basis that "yes, it has been annihilated" (above). This is an obviously absurd position for the CMT is fact, given the scholars now advocating for it (as shown by Carrier). I now doubt Bill's objectivity and strongly question his ability to help produce an NPOV article. Maybe it's time to consider ANI proceedings against him. Renejs (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The mere fact that your edit has been reverted shows that there's no consensus on this point.
What's more, I don't agree with you that Grant's quote is false. You're unduly focused on the word "annihilated". Grant's sentence is a strongly-worded statement that the CMT has almost no acceptance in academia--a point which is not contradicted by Carrier's statement that two current profs, two retired profs, and two independent scholars support the CMT. In fact, that's good evidence that the CMT is marginal--Carrier names only a handful of supporters, some of whom--independent scholars--are by definition outside academia.
Nor do I think the quote from Carrier belongs in a "Criticism" section. The point of a "criticism" section is to cover the views of the critics, rather than to argue against them. In fact, the way Carrier's quote is being used--to argue against Grant--is a violation of the no original research policy, because it makes it seem as if Carrier is refuting Grant when that is clearly not his purpose in the source article. For the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, on the basis of Carrier's statement, that "The current situation is somewhat different," is also original research, unless Carrier said that in the original source. Even so, Carrier's assessments of the popularity (or lack thereof) of the CMT should not simply be repeated as fact, because different assessments can easily be found.
I am open to including the Carrier quote somewhere in the article, but not as a refutation of Grant, and not as an impartial statement of the popularity of the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as Akhilleus and Bill the Cat 7 have pointed out: there is no consensus whatsoever for the change Renejs keeps trying to push through.Jeppiz (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The ANI discussion mentioned above demonstrated clearly that "consensus" can be used by POV pushers to obstruct improvements in Wikipedia. What trumps alleged need for consensus (and procedure of all kind, BTW--i.e., "rules") is verifiable fact. Grant was and is wrong--easily proven by Carrier (re: "annihilated"). That's why he has to be amended or to go bye-bye. The "very abundant evidence to the contrary" is also pure POV. Pushing to keep the Grant in 2015 is astonishing. It's pushing a rock up a hill that's getting steeper, because more scholars are coming on board with the CMT all the time. The situation changes, and Wikipedia has to change with it. Renejs (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you knew there wasn't any consensus for your version, but you still claimed there was a consensus. Not because it was true, but because you disagree with Wikipedia's policies. All policies can be misused, but can I remind you that you're the one defending a discredited fringe theory with virtually no academic support, and those you call "POV-pushers" are trying to apply the ideas of using reliable sources to represent the actual academic consensus. As a single-purpose account with a heavy conflict of interest who just admitted you deliberately lied about there being a consensus to get rid of something you dislike, you're not really in the position to put yourself above the rules. Jeppiz (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? I suppose you consider Carrier, Brodie, and Price unreliable. Oh well. I see why we have a problem communicating.

"Deliberately lied"? You've gone over the edge, Jep. Renejs (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gone over the edge? That's rich. Previously, you have openly declared you will disregard Wikipedia policies and edit

war for the WP:TRUTH and in your edit summary you claimed there was a consensus but when called out, you instead say that consensuses are bad. It's really quite simple, Rene. Wikipedia operates under certain rules. You've made it very clear you don't like them, but that does not give you the right to ignore them. If you feel my "deliberately lied" is wrong, then perhaps you'd care to explain why you first claimed a consensus in your edit summary even though you admit on the talk page you knew full well there was no consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to condemn. There is consensus for the content of the Carrier quote being correct. I proposed that addition on this talk page days before adding it to the article, and gave ample time for everyone to comment. That's "consensus" in my book. NOBODY offered any objection or even any comment (except Bill's pet slam about the CMT and green cheese). But you say there was no "consensus" to ADD it? Like Meiering, do you need a singing telegram? What was the point of putting it on the talk page if it wasn't to ADD it? Renejs (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing another editor's comments on a talk page is very revealing, Anselm. I'm quite surprised and now know who you are. I won't forget. Renejs (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Continued disruption by POV-pushing truth warriors

Two single purpose accounts continue to disrupt the article while showing no intention to actually discuss it. It's a bit frustrating, as we've had long and intense discussions during months trying to find a way forward, yet these two disruptive users who only use Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT continue to sail in from time to time and disrupt all other editors and make sure their preferred version stays. In the process, they manage to violate WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:POV, but of course they don't care about that as these religiously motivated SPAs are campaigning for the truth. Given that their actions render all discussion pointless, and their whole point is to wear down serious users who actually take the time to discuss, I'd suggest ANI should be the next. The combination of being a single-purpose account who ignore WP:OWN to push for a higher truth is probably the most disruptive kind of user there is at Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeated WP:BLP violations

The edit warring of the WP:SPAs is starting to go a bit too far. We're no longer talking content disputes, but deliberately inserting false information about living persons into the article. This violates WP:BLP, and the edit warring over it using socks does not make it prettier.Jeppiz (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Jeppiz? What "socks"? What "false information"? Renejs (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a funny way of "staying away" René. Listing Dawkins as CMT proponent violates WP:BLP.Jeppiz (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What part of the Dawkins section violates WP:BLP? The whole thing? How so? Renejs (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Has Renejs really left?

Gmarxx is a WP:SPA focused on:

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there is enough evidence here for a post at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hear, hear. For the record, the account Gekritzl is also an SPA. Quite a coincidence that after a long silence, both Gmarxx and Gekritzl turns up not only the same day, but almost the same minute at the same article, both of them doing exactly the same edit. Either outright socking or meat-socking.Jeppiz (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You may take off the paranoid hat--GMarxx is not my sockpuppet. And what is "meat-socking"? Must look that up.

And, yes, Renejs has really left. What you are reading is only a delusion--as was JC. Renejs (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of any sockpuppet investigation that may be opened, if you add BLP violations back into the article, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop your edit warring. StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Funny how he came back just as we started pointing out potential socking. A few days later? That'd be easier to buy that he just checked the page out of curiosity. But right after?
If he had had activity elsewhere on the site (just avoiding this article), I'd totally buy that he just saw this thread. But to say he's going to be leaving the site to complete a book, to return right after we start to wonder about a sockpuppet so obvious that Stevie Wonder could see it from the International Space Station while facing the other way... Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

So far this is a minor and enjoyable distraction. Renejs (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

I've started this thread on ANI regarding tendentious editing and socking. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comments, moving forward

To make the article more readable and informative, I would suggest removing both outdated proponents and opponents, except in a brief "History" section. Furthermore, I suggest removing all "amateurs with opinions" and focus the article on the views of academics in the field (again, both proponents and opponents) in line with WP:RS and WP:NPOV.Jeppiz (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning

This is my somewhat longer explanation to the RFC above, which I've tried to keep strictly neutral. I think everybody can agree that this page has stalled, and even the slightest edits lead to long discussions, arguments, and accusations of POV thrown at anyone who disagree with one or the other user. It's also safe to say that no "side" (so to speak) has without fault. It seems everybody agree that sources they don't like should be removed if they are too old. Similarly, everybody has expressed misgivings about non-experts who don't share their opinion. I would also hope everybody could agree that Wikipedia is about neutral and general principles, so an argument to remove old sources or non-experts should be equally valid whether we agree with that source or not. Based on that, I'd like to propose the following changes:

  • Removing all old sources (including Grant, who has been debated, but also all other sources that are from the 70s or earlier) except in a History of CMT where the most notable early proponents are identified, their views summarized and, when applicable, refuted in case later research has done so.-
  • Removing all non-experts. Articles should build on reliable sources, which means people with an academic reputation in the relevant field. There is no reason to include "amateurs with opinions" regardless of whether they support or reject CMT. Wikipedia operates under WP:RS (sources should be reliable) and under WP:NPOV (articles should give an accurate picture of the academic balance in the field). Opinionated amateurs, no matter whether they are Christian apologetics or atheists, whether they are pro-CMT or anti-CMT, should be removed. Possibly a short section could make a brief mention of the 2-3 most famous non-experts, but in a very brief format and clearly labelled as such for the reader.

I think these changes would improve the article quite a bit, as it's in rather poor shape and leading experts and complete amateurs are mixed together in a way making it hard for the reader to get an accurate picture.Jeppiz (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose One big problem is that anybody who propounds the CMT (even today) is immediately pushed out of academia (cf. Brodie as the latest example, Bauer as an earlier, many other names possible). So, the standard definition of "expert" as an "academic with a reputation in the relevant field" doesn't cut it with the CMT. Ever wonder why the major proponents of the CMT are and have been OUTSIDE academia? They may even have relevant PhD's (Price, Carrier, many others) but they don't get a job, publishing contracts, prestige, etc. Doherty's a great example of someone who has played a major and pioneering role in the modern development of the CMT. But, by all conventional standards, his opinion shouldn't matter at all--he a self-published "amateur" with no PhD. Three strikes. However, I strongly support your first point: "removing old sources" (e.g. Grant). We should be able to do better. Renejs (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:GREATWRONGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Renejs has a major conflict of interest as he is one of the "opinionated amateurs". It's perhaps understandable he does not want to remove himself, but once again, the conflict of interest is immense. As for Brodie, he wasn't pushed out of academia. He is a priest, I could understand why a Christian order felt it could not have a spokesperson claiming Jesus didn't exist. And in case I was unclear, of course I meant that both Price and Carrier should remain. More than that, I think a revised version of the article with all the amateurs taken out could even provide some more room to develop Price and Carrier. So yes, Renejs should be taken out of the article (and that should happen in either case given his active involvement) alongside other amateurs with opinions (once again, we have WP:RS for a reason) but the actual article should remain and should of course present an overview of CMT as put forward by WP:RS proponents. The idea here is to make the article better for the reader, not to censor any view.Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Umm, I think you need to read up on the details re: Brodie. He was pushed out of academia. He was founder and for many years Director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick, Ireland until the appearance of his 2012 Beyond the Quest of the Historical Jesus. "Immediately after the book’s publication Brodie was (for the first time) forbidden to teach" ([9] by yours truly--with embedded link).
As for your weird ideas about culling out of the CMT article whoever you choose to call a "non-expert," I've already given my opinion: oppose.Renejs (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not whom I call non-expert, it's following WP:RS. But ok, you've voiced your opinion. Renejs opposes removing Renejs from the article, true to WP:COI-form. Your opinion is clear.Jeppiz (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The relevant standard is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. By that standard, Carrier is an expert. De Guerre (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite know what part of that guideline you mean - in any case, it's more about identifying publications than identifying people. Certainly, we could cite Carrier's PhD thesis, but I wonder if he is an expert in this area. Nothing comes up in Google Scholar. It doesn't look lie his work has been published in "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". StAnselm (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Incredible. Simply incredible. You're POV is greatly showing, Anselm. Richard Carrier is an "amateur" on the CMT? Wowie.Could you give some rationale for that astonishing declaration? It would be difficult to get much more ridiculous--like saying Muhammad Ali was an amateur at boxing. Renejs (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Wikipedia doesn't really have the concept of an "expert", merely a "reliable source". Reliability is a property of a source, not a person. Nonetheless, surely On the Historicity of Jesus is a peer-reviewed book published by a mainstream academic publisher? De Guerre (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes - thank you, that's what I was after. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: This appears to be another in a succession of attempts to make the CMT article disappear. The “history of the theory” needs to stay in full, for two overlapping reasons: a) the article is about the CMT, so it needs to describe the CMT properly, and b) the CMT is not one simple theory but an assembly of slightly different theories from different proponents, ranging in scope from Wells to Carrier, so for the reader to get a proper understanding of the CMT we need to include all facets. Secondly, the issue of “reliable sources” is a poisoned question – as discussed previously, the people who are the best sources about the CMT are those who invented the CMT, not the critics with a strong contrary POV. There is no such thing as a PhD in CMT, and having a PhD in mainstream biblical studies does not make one an expert in the CMT – probably quite the opposite. For example, Carrier is a leading proponent of the CMT, but an editor has now questioned whether Carrier can be considered to be an expert in his own theory. It seems some editors want to deny the proponents of the CMT a voice in the article about their own theory, and allow only comments from the opponents. How could that possibly be in line with Wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is extremely well written. Thank you. Wdford. Those trained in standard Biblical Studies curricula have no exposure at all to the CMT--if they've ever even heard of it. Even Ehrman is woefully unaquainted with it's literature and wrote a very poor book attempting to combat it (see here for CMT rebuttals:[10]). Renejs (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment In case I was unclear when writing the RfC, of course I meant that both Price and Carrier should remain. More than that, I think a revised version of the article with all the amateurs taken out could even provide some more room to develop people like Price and Carrier. Amateurs with opinions should be taken out just as in any other articke (once again, we have WP:RS for a reason) but the actual article should remain and should of course present an overview of CMT as put forward by WP:RS proponents. The idea here is to make the article better for the reader, not to censor any view.Jeppiz (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure by including only experts is really the way to go. Almost every person writing pro-CMT books are non-experts and, as WDFord says, the people who are the best sources about the CMT are those who invented the CMT. I think it would be best if we take WDFord's approach and then make it perfectly clear that the CMT is fringe and that proponents of it don't get teaching positions in accredited universities because of it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe it, Bill. I agree with you! Wow. See, I also agree with Wdford's approach. Renejs (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not opposed to a short section about notable non-scholars who advanced CMT, written according to WP:FRIND. As an overview of who counts as a scholar, we could start from Ehrman's review of notable CMT proponents: he counts two New Testament scholars and some more historians. If he is somewhat outdated, his list of scholars could be amended by consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! I suggested that already in the first post, but unfortunately Renejs chose to misrepresent what I had written and then attack his own misrepresentation of what I had said. We should mention some prominent non-scholars, but we should not mention everyone who has commented on it, as we're currently doing.Jeppiz (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment On reflection, I think that part of the confusion is that this article is trying to do two things. CMT is both an academic position (in the sense that even though it's clearly WP:FRINGE, there is WP:RS, some of which is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which advocates it) and a cultural phenomenon (in the sense that there is notable WP:QS). Everything I said in my support above I still agree with, however, I'm framing this debate in terms of "removing non-experts" probably isn't helpful. The goal of a reorganisation should be to clearly separate RS from notable QS (and, of course, historical opinions, which is a third category), and to remove only (and all) non-notable QS. De Guerre (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Figures who were part of academia and then "shoved out" would qualify as scholars. They would be included (if possibly labelled as fringe), while those who were not a part of academia before and after making their claims should be excluded. Going through just the 21st century section, and assuming that an appropriate scholar would be one who has a degree in New Testament history, Classical history, or something similar, Brodie, Carrier, Doherty, Harpur, Thompson, and even Price would be appropriate to be included -- But Hitchens, Murdock, and Salm are about as appropriate to include as Ken Ham. That wouldn't drastically cut down the article, but would turn this from a piece of CMT evangelism into a neutral article about the actual scholarship instead of the crackpots. If any of the cranks merit their own article (like Acharya S), we can link to their views in some section clearly labelled "non-academic views." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Highly confusing

It's really impossible to do anything with this article, as some users change their claims as it suits their arguments. When we discussed whether to mark this as a fringe theory, some people shouted No!!! and argued that there is WP:RS support for CMT. When there is a discussion to remove amateurs and focus on the WP:RS sources, some of the same people again shout No!!, and now arguing that we cannot do that because there is no academic support. You quite frankly cannot have it both ways. Either there is no WP:RS support (and we should therefore mark this as a fringe theory, any theory with no academic support is a fringe theory) or there is WP:RS support and we can write an article based on those sources without needing to resort to people who fail WP:RS. As Tgeorgescu wrote, it really seems that some users use this article Right Great Wrongs, convinced that they represent the WP:TRUTH and it must be defended against an evil conspiracy who try to silence all opposition.Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this is that Jeppiz is equating "academic support" with "reliable sources." That doesn't work for the CMT which, simply put, for the past 200 years has been deliberately--and very tendentiously--excluded from academic curricula. Umm, that's POV not from Wikipedia but from the whole academic world. Yeah, you heard it here first. . . Renejs (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't work for the CMT. Academic support considers the CMT like the theory that the moon is made of green cheese (among other derogatory conclusions). Do you have a problem with academics excluding such nonsense from the curricula? So, what exactly is your point? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I might suggest a radical alternative: deletion of the entire page. You read correctly: delete the entire CMT article. Why? Because it does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABILITY. (See also: [12].) There we read: "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." IMO, this does not exist for the CMT--or arguably so (the operative words are "significant coverage").

Even fringe articles need to be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (same link above). Is this the case with the CMT? So, I leave it up to consensus. We could start an RfC on "Does the CMT article meet WP:NOTABILITY or should it be deleted?" Renejs (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Aw, is someone upset that their pet theories don't merit inclusion in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We do, however, have sources that, subject matter ignored, would otherwise be appropriate to cite on the field of Classical or Early Christian history. The majority of the 21st century proponents have some sort of relevant degree -- removing the rest just happens to cut out Rene Salm, which is the real reason why Renejs has a problem with it. Narrowing the article down to proponents who have relevant degrees should satisfy both sides: it makes the CMT side look respectable while also not over representing its prominence among scholars by allowing every Tom, Dick, and Rene with a type writer to pretend they're a massive minority. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More specific proposal of what should be kept and removed

The following figures must be removed from the 20th and 21st century sections (or at least merged into a one-paragraph "other authors" section that introduces them as not being scholars of the relevant field):

Old list
  • G.J.P.J. Bolland - "Autodidact" is an overglorified term for individuals we now call bloggers.
  • Francesco Carotta - Not a historian.
  • Paul-Louis Couchoud - Physician (not a professor of philosophy), not a historian
  • Alvar Ellegård - Professor of English, not history.
  • Christopher Hitchens - Journalist, not a historian. About as appropriate to include as Jack T. Chick in the Evolution article.
  • John E. Remsburg - School teacher, not a historian
  • J.M. Robertson - Journalist, not even a historian
  • W.B. Smith - Mathematician, not a historian
  • Dorothy M. Murdock - Including Murdock as anything more than a conspiracy theorist new-ager has to be a joke.
  • René Salm - Overglorified blogger who happened to be mentioned in passing by a few bigger names. Also, WP:COI, WP:RGW, and WP:NOTHERE issues.
  • G. A. Wells - Professor of German, not history.

The following figures absolutely must be kept in the 20th and 21st century sections:

  • J. M. Allegro - Archaeologist and Philologist who worked with the freaking Dead Sea Scrolls.
  • Thomas Brodie - PhD in theology, taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament studies.
  • Richard Carrier - If I were a CMT proponent, I'd push for undue weight on Carrier.
  • Tom Harpur - Theologian, taught New Testament studies.
  • Robert M. Price - PhD in Systematic Theology and New Testament studies.
  • Thomas L. Thompson - Professor of Theology.

Were the article left entirely to me, I would also include the following proponents, but will not cry if consensus is against me:

  • Arthur Drews - Professor of philosophy, popularized Bauer's ideas
  • Earl Doherty - I'm willing to include Doherty because Price and Carrier speak of him favorably, and his degree is mostly in the right direction (just not a PhD).
  • Alexander Jacob - Professor of philosophy, focuses heavily on India but does touch on Greece and the Middle East
  • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - BA in Ancient Greek, PhD in Theosophy
  • G.R.S. Mead - Studied the Classics, Greek, and Latin at Cambridge, and his translation of the Corpus Hermeticum was the English standard until Copenhaver's 1992 translation.

That eliminates about half of the current sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As previously noted, I think that the standard should be whether or not the proponent has published WP:SCHOLARSHIP on the topic, not necessarily what their degree was in. As luck would have it, a rough sample of the names in the list suggests to me that this proposal looks pretty close to that standard. De Guerre (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with some of this list, but people who have made a substantial contribution to the theory should be retained even if they do not have a PhD in biblical studies. It again comes back to the question of "who is a reliable source about the CMT - surely the people who invented the CMT are the most reliable sources about their own theory?" For example I would particularly suggest that Wells has to be retained - Ehrman spoke glowingly of him, and referred to him as a senior proponent of the CMT. Wdford (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought we should follow the lead of secondary sources on the CMT when deciding who to include as a proponent. In other words, take a look at the treatments of the CMT by sources such as Albert Schweitzer, Maurice Goguel, William Weaver, Robert Van Voorst, and Bart Ehrman--who are all academic experts on the study of the historical Jesus--and see who they list as important proponents of the theory. They all treat J.M. Robertson, W.B. Smith, and Couchaud as important proponents, so our article should too. Expert sources like Weaver, Van Voorst, and Ehrman treat G.A. Wells and Robert M. Price as important proponents, so our article should too. Ehrman treats Carrier as an important proponent of the CMT, so our article should too.

On the other hand, writers like Remsburg, Hitchens, Salm, Murdock, are not treated as important proponents by secondary sources and so ought to be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Per suggestions above, and going with whether or not the section has secondary sources, the list would look more like:
New list
(20th century)
  • J.M. Robertson - Name mentioned in 20th c. intro based on Voorst ref
  • John E. Remsburg - List's use by others mentioned in 20th c. intro
  • W.B. Smith - Either merge to Arthur Drews section (as influence), or to 20th c. intro, either way a two sentence explanation discussing Smith's claims of Hindu solar-cult claim and influence on Arthur Drews in intro based on Voorst and Weaver refs
  • Arthur Drews - Mostly left alone (beyond merges)
  • Paul-Louis Couchoud - Merge with Arthur Drews, since he was mostly just elaborating on him
  • G.J.P.J. Bolland - Name mentioned in 20th c. intro (maybe Bauer) based on Biographical Dictionary of 20th c. philosophies
  • G.R.S. Mead - Left alone
  • J. M. Allegro - Left alone
  • Alvar Ellegård - Name mentioned in 20th c. intro or Allegro (since his claims were based on an interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls)
  • G. A. Wells - Left alone
  • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Left alone
  • Francesco Carotta - Drop completely
(21st century)
  • Thomas Brodie - Reduce second paragraph's reliance on primary sources.
  • Richard Carrier - Left alone
  • Earl Doherty - Reduce to a sentence in the 21st c. intro
  • Tom Harpur - Reduce to a sentence in the 21st c. intro, or Kuhn section
  • Christopher Hitchens - Drop completely
  • Alexander Jacob - Drop completely
  • Dorothy M. Murdock / Acharya S - Name mentioned in intro, maybe a sentence explaining views while noting criticism from even other CMT proponents
  • Robert M. Price - Reduced but kept. The bit about his personal beliefs (former Baptist, taking part in the Eucharist, Episcopal church attendence) is not relevant to this article and should be dropped. Everything beyond that cites primary sources, and should be reduced to the shortest explanations possible.
  • René Salm - Name could be mentioned in 21st c. intro, otherwise dropped completely
  • Thomas L. Thompson - Name mentioned in intro.
That would result in the article contents looking like:
  • 20th century
    • Arthur Drews (and other)
    • G.R.S. Mead
    • J. M. Allegro
    • G. A. Wells
    • Alvin Boyd Kuhn
  • 21st century
    • Thomas Brodie
    • Richard Carrier
    • Robert M. Price
That reduces those two sections by about two-thirds, but we would need to follow it by expanding with additional secondary and tertiary sources (which might restore a few of the cut sections). Per User:Bladesmulti's suggestion on my talk page, I'll do a rough draft of this and self-revert so we can get a better idea of what that looks like for discussion. It would not be the final version, as the remaining sections would need additional expanding from secondary and tertiary sources.
P.S. Just before I saved this, I noticed that the books section has a number of books that don't have articles, even though the section explicitly states the books are those we have articles for. I'm going to trim that first and not self revert on that. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Overall good, but I would not mention people who have only been mentioned briefly. As Wdford said, someone like Wells who is discussed at some length by WP:RS sources should most probably be kept in. But mentioning people like Ellegård just because they have been referred to in passing seems excessive (let's keep in mind that Ellegård was largely ignored and almost entirely dismissed by the few scholars asked to comment).Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
If I wasn't going to self-revert, I'd check for sources outside the article (and actually check the sources in the article) to see what merits more/less inclusion, but otherwise I'm going to try for minimal effort. As it is, since we've got an article about Ellegård, I'm (just) guessing (perhaps incorrectly) that there might be secondary sources about his CMT work (or else I have to ask why we have that article). A bit against WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I didn't sleep well last night (had to prevent an electrical fire in my room at 2 am ...and about an hour later the cat finally smelled the ozone and decided to try to rescue me). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We have an article about Ellegård because he was a notable academic in English philology, but that does not make him an WP:RS in history or anything else related to CMT.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The way to characterize the CMT is by impact on the field, not by credentials, peer-reviewed publications, etc., because the CMT (more correctly, "Jesus mythicism") is a phenomenon which has exclusively taken place outside of academia. I would propose two broad categories: (1) Proponents of the CMT (those who have publicly espoused the CMT AND who have had a considerable impact within the field--regardless of academic standing and degrees); and (2) Notable agnostics (non-related figures from any field who have publicly stated their openness to the CMT). I would further subdivide each category into: (a) those alive today; and (b) in history. I don't have time to set up a separate section for this, but basically would present it as follows:

(1) Proponents of the CMT (a) Alive today: • Earl Doherty - Probably the most influential CMT proponent alive today. Details the thesis that Jesus was an immaterial being executed in the spiritual realm. • Robert M. Price - PhD in Systematic Theology and New Testament studies. Argues in many books that the early Christians adopted the model for the figure of Jesus from popular Mediterranean dying-rising savior myths. • Thomas Brodie - PhD in theology, taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament studies. Publicly endorses the CMT in his 2012 book. • Richard Carrier - His 2014 book concludes that it is more likely that the earliest Christians were not inspired by a real person named Jesus but instead considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations. • Tom Harpur - Theologian, taught New Testament studies. Argues that Jesus is a myth and all of the essential ideas of Christianity originated in Egypt. • Frank Zindler. ("The Jesus the Jews Never Knew"). Examined the Jewish texts demonstrating that they had no knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth. • Dorothy M. Murdock - Much maligned, but she has a vocal following within the field today and should be included for that reason. • Michael Paulkovich ("No Meek Messiah"). • René Salm - No comment per COI.

(b) In history: • C. H. Dupuis. Author who considered Christianity “a fable with the same foundation as all the other solar religions.” • Bruno Bauer. The first "academic mythicist." • Allard Pierson. Founder of the Dutch Radical School, for whom the non-historicity of Jesus was obvious. • J.M. Robertson - The most incisive Jesus mythicist of the early 19th century ("Christianity and Mythology," etc.) • W.B. Smith - Wrote ground-breaking books on the CMT, but arguably less important than Robertson. • G.J.P.J. Bolland. ("De Evangelische Jozua") Argued that “Jesus” was derived from the Old Testament figure Joshua, son of Nun. • Arthur Drews - ("The Christ Myth"). The most famous CMT proponent of a century ago. Argued that no independent evidence for the historical existence of Jesus has ever been found outside the New Testament writings. • G. A. van Eysinga. Dutch "radical" who rejected the historicity of Jesus and also concluded that the Pauline writings were produced by disciples of Marcion. • Salomon Reinach. Endorsed the docetic view of Jesus: he was a spirit. • Samuel Lublinski. Argued that Christianity arose out of a syncretism of Judaism, mystery religions, gnosticism, and oriental influences. • Arthur Heulhard. Maintained that it was John the Baptist, not Jesus, who proclaimed himself the Christ. • Paul-Louis Couchoud - Had a major impact on the development of the CMT. Argued that Marcion wrote the first gospel after the Bar Kochba revolt (133 CE). • Prosper Alfaric ("The Problem of Jesus and Christian Origins"). Prof. of religion, excommunicated from the priesthood for his publications. Argued for Essene origin of Christianity and against the historicity of Jesus. • E. Dujardin, ("Ancient History Of The God Jesus") in four volumes. • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - American scholar of comparative religion. CMT author who influenced Harpur greatly. • Georges Ory. Influential French mythicist of the mid-19th century. Concludes that “Jesus Christ is a composite god.” • Alvar Ellegård - The principal proponent of the "Jesus lived 100 BCE" thesis. Identifies Jesus with the Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Scrolls. • J. M. Allegro - Archaeologist and Philologist who worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Argued that the story of Jesus was based on the crucifixion of the Teacher of Righteousness in the scrolls.

(2) Notable agnostics sympathetic to the CMT: (a) Alive today: • Hermann Detering. German academic, Pauline mythicist with radical views on Christian origins. • G. A. Wells- A major British writer in the field, once a CMT proponent who has shifted his view to that of "agnostic" which is why he is in this category. • Thomas L. Thompson - European "minimalist." Co-editor of an important commentary on mythicism ("Is This Not the Carpenter?") • N. P. Lemche. Minimalist who is open to the CMT. • Philip Davies - States that the evidence for the historical Jesus is "fragile" and needs to be "tested." • Alexander Jacob - Professor of philosophy, focuses heavily on India and argues the mythological basis of Christianity. • Robert Eisenman. Redates the DSS to the first century CE and assigns James as the leading figure in "Christianity."

(b) In history: • G. Higgins. Argued that many religions are based on pseudohistory. • D. F. Strauss. ("The Life of Jesus"). Demonstrated the strong mythical element in the Jesus story. • G. Massey. Self-taught Egyptologist drawing parallels between the Jesus story and Egyptian antecedents. • Albert Schweitzer. Famously concluded that the the Jesus of history evaporates upon close examination. • G.R.S. Mead - A significant writer with an agnostic stance who, to my knowledge, did not openly argue the CMT but suggested that "Jesus" may have lived c. 100 BCE. • Bertrand Russell. Wrote that "historically it is quite doubtful that Jesus existed." • Christopher Hitchens. Maintained that "there is no reason to believe that [Jesus existed]."

The above is not exhaustive but more defensible than the Thomson lists. Renejs (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins should be added to the (2a) category: Notable agnostics alive today. Renejs (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The Thomson list is based on Wikipedia's rules, your suggestion is (as usual) preceded by a disclaimer about why we should ignore Wikipedia's rules. And it's not true that CMT has taken place outside academia, there are good academics who are CMT proponents. We should base the article on their work, and that is actually doing CMT a favour. Currently the serious work on CMT is drowned among a mix of well-meaning non-experts and outright conspiracy theorists. A good article on CMT based on the Thomson list benefits every reader. It would exclude you, which explains why you oppose it, but that is not a reason to cast aside Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Except that the clear motivation for your list is to turn the article into a puff piece that makes arguments from naming famous names and lots of other names. Wikipedia favors secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, because anyone can create primary sources, and so they are no indication whatsoever of how important a proponent is. The second list I've provided goes with proponents who are written about by other people, including other proponents!
Honestly, Renejs, I'm just going to do my best to ignore anything else you have to say since you're not here to build a neutral encyclopedia, but preach and crusade for your religious beliefs. ("But I'm not religious!" Then why are you acting just like a Young Earth Creationist that insists we cite Ken Ham in the Evolution article?) I recommend others do so as well until you make enough of a disruption to get you topic-banned, if not blocked, since the only consensus you'll accept is one that presents CMTers as prophets of the truth about Jesus. This is exactly what I would recommend if we were dealing fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Muslim. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A version of the article with the proposed changes mostly in place (or rather, a starting point for such an article) can seen here in this link I'm making longer just to be easier to find. It reduces the article by about 21,861 bytes, down to 111,387 bytes. These are only the minimal changes I think need doing. Pictures could be trimmed (especially Harpur's), Price's three point argument could be merged into the key arguments section, W.B. Smith, Paul-Louis Couchoud, and the 20th and 21st century intros could be more concise. I'll note that this was only a half-can of Mountain Dew's work (less caffeine than I thought, and still suspect, was necessary to do this properly). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we definitely need to keep Doherty as well - he is a major CMT proponent as was acknowledged by Ehrman. We cannot exclude Doherty from an article on his own theory just because he doesn't have a PhD in a rival discipline - that would be like insisting that only Catholic Cardinals are reliable sources for an article on birth control. I prefer the suggestion that we include all authors who contributed substantially to the theory, irrespective of their academic standing in the eyes of their enemies. Remsburg's work was also very influential - it will need a mention somewhere, even if just in a summary section. I don't see the need to divide between living and dead authors. Overall I would prefer that we have sections based on "facets of the CMT" rather than "proponents of the CMT", so that we group the points and then add a list of those authors that support that particular facet, but there are so many facets which vary slightly from the other facets. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
My main concern with Doherty is that if his article is accurate, almost much everything he's written on CMT is WP:SELFPUB under his own (vanity?) imprint. First edition of The Jesus Puzzle is an exception, so I would rule him in. But it's still something to watch. De Guerre (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Books by authors who neither are scholars in the field nor published by any major publication house is the very definition of something that fails WP:RS, and one of the reasons the policy was developed in the first place. I still think Doherty is sufficiently covered in good sources. True, they almost all dispute him, but what we discuss here is notability, not agreement. I would definitely keep Doherty in the article, but try to focus as far as possible at writings that aren't self-published.Jeppiz (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
And here we have yet another illustration of the fundamental problem in this article. To suggest that Doherty is not an expert "in the field" is complete nonsense, since the "field" in question is the Christ Myth Theory, which Doherty helped to create. A scholar who is a published expert in a diametrically opposed field does not automatically qualify as an expert in the CMT field - just as a fundamentalist Christian is not automatically an expert in Islam. The article has long been bedeviled by the argument over how to define a "CMT Expert", and several editors have argued long and hard to exclude many of the people who invented the theory on the grounds that they cannot be experts in their own theory because they do not have doctorates in the rival theory. Established experts in biblical studies certainly disagree with (and often deride) the CMT, just as many fundamentalist Christians disagree with (and often blatantly misrepresent) the teachings of Islam, but established experts in biblical studies are not automatically experts in the CMT. The very people who created the CMT are surely the most competent to explain the theory they created, yes? After all, nobody can have a PhD in CMT if no university offers such a qualification? Wdford (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As a nit, CMT isn't a field, but neither is "Historical Christ Theory" (or whatever). The field is almost always referred to as "Christian origins". Christianity and its early texts indisputably didn't exist at some point in the past and indisputably existed later. The goal is to understand how they came to be, and "expertise" means expertise in studying that topic (be it from the perspective of ancient history, classics, ancient literature, or whatever). I would rule Doherty in not because of qualifications, but because he has published at least one good source and is covered by other good sources. De Guerre (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
CMT certainly is a field in its own right, just not a field that is popular with many "recognized scholars" who are experts in rival theories about Christian origins. Here again we have a case of the supporters of one field trying to deny their rivals the right to exist. If this article was about "Christian origins" then I would whole-heartedly agree with De Guerre, but since this article is about the Christ Myth Theory we need to find experts on the Christ Myth Theory. Who would know the CMT better than the very people who created the CMT? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
On a separate point - is there an existing article on "Christian Origins" - it sounds like something that could be very useful indeed? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Found it already, my bad. Wdford (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been five days, and there seems to be a general consensus for Ian.thomson's draft as a first step. I think we all agree that it's not the final version, but it really does a good job of removing irrelevant aspects (self-published amateurs) to focus on the more serious and well-known proponents. Like Wdford, I think Doherty should remain, as is the case in Ian's draft, and I have the impression De Guerre also thinks that that version is a step forward?Jeppiz (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am still concerned that this proposed purge could delete info that is relevant to understanding the broad scope and variety of the various nuances of the CMT. I am also concerned about the use of terms like "self-published amateurs", since there is no official qualification in the CMT itself, and the "qualified professionals" are thus by definition people who have doctorates in the rival theory. Perhaps a better way forward would be for an editor to propose removing a specific section or author, and then for that proposed removal to be discussed and agreed upon, before moving on to the next. If there is real consensus this won't take long, and it will help to avoid a POV-purge and the consequent drama. Jeppiz, who would you like to delete first - please state your case? Wdford (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to delete what Ian.thomson removed in his draft. If you think that there is relevant information that that draft removed and which is needed, what would you like to keep and why. And "self-published amateurs" is a very real problem, as we have WP:RS. If I may say so, Wdford, I have a feeling you haven't taken the time to go through the draft. All of your comments in the last days have been about we should keep Doherty and why we should not limit ourselves to official qualification. I agree with you on all of those aspects, but Doherty and a large number of proponents are as present as ever in the proposed draft, so I'm a bit unsure what in the draft you oppose.Jeppiz (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Jeppiz, it's not "what would you like to keep and why?" but "what would you like to remove and why"? The burden of evidence is on the person changing the status quo. Wdford is correct. Dawkins stays until someone makes a case (by consensus) for removal of content. Renejs (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The idea here is for a discussion between serious users, not edit warring WP:SPAs. That a conspiracy theorist continues to violates WP:COI to use Wikipedia to push his self-published books is of no relevance whatsoever to how the article should look, but should definitely be a topic for ANI. There is a reason for COI, it's not just an empty statement.Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am working on Ian’s list called “New List”. Am I on the wrong list?

I am happy to merge sections, as the focus should not be on individual authors but rather on the shared views, which obviously are overlapping in places. My concern is that we should not lose valuable content about the Theory.

I do think we should reduce the long lists of each author’s background and works, and focus only on the ideas as they are relevant to the CMT.

Working from “Ian’s New List”, my comments are as follows: (20th century)

  • J.M. Robertson – there is a lot of important content here
  • John E. Remsburg – the list is important, and needs to be properly explained
  • W.B. Smith – agree to merge to Arthur Drews section
  • Arthur Drews - Mostly left alone (beyond merges)
  • Paul-Louis Couchoud – agree to merge with Arthur Drews,
  • G.J.P.J. Bolland – agree to merge with Bauer
  • G.R.S. Mead - Left alone
  • J. M. Allegro - Left alone
  • Alvar Ellegård – agree to merge with Allegro
  • G. A. Wells - Left alone
  • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Left alone
  • Francesco Carotta – some of this looks useful – I'm not happy to delete the content entirely

(21st century)

  • Thomas Brodie – agree to clean up.
  • Richard Carrier - Left alone
  • Earl Doherty – this is an important proponent – keep in full for now, and probably expand further
  • Tom Harpur – merge into a combined pagan-gods section
  • Christopher Hitchens – agree to delete
  • Alexander Jacob – merge with Harpur pagan-gods section
  • Dorothy M. Murdock / Acharya S – maybe mention her name in the Harpur section for completeness
  • Robert M. Price – agree to clean up heavily, but keep the main points
  • René Salm – agree to reduce to intro
  • Thomas L. Thompson – also merge into Harpur pagan-section.

Thoughts? Wdford (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford. I would place myself somewhere between your proposal and Ian's proposal. I agree with you that Doherty should be in, a notable proponent. I agree with Ian that Robertson and Carotta should go. Robertson was a notable politician, but had no competence in this field and (perhaps more important) it's been almost 100 years and his ideas have been thoroughly disproved. Allegro is more modern, but definitely represent the more extreme conspiracy part of CMT and (as far as I know) is not taken seriously even by most CMT proponents.Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I can live with reducing Allegro to a mention in the intro or somewhere. However Robertson's views were significant at the time. The fact that some critics claim he has been disproved doesn't alter the fact that his views were significant to the CMT. The Pandera issue is significant on its own, and is part of the core plank that "there may have been a Jesus but it was a different Jesus to the guy in the gospels". This article is about the CMT, not about what the CMT's enemies are prepared to concede. Wdford (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I did make some changes from the New List to the actual draft, based on responses to the new list. Doherty got a paragraph (not just a sentence) in the 21st century intro, just not given his own section. I need to grab some lunch, otherwise I'd try to list some of the additional differences. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. That's why I originally suggested a "History of CMT" section, precisely to include people like Robertson. In general, I'd like to see the article more readable and less "list-like".Jeppiz (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, that does look a bit better from a content-completeness perspective.
I really don't like the list-of-authors-basis that we have now. I also don't think the current "Key Arguments" section is appropriate, as this section is far from complete and it contains more commentary refuting the CMT than describing it.
I don't think a "History" section would work either, because there is no clear linear progression toward an agreed current state - rather there are many facets which were/are held by some proponents but not necessarily by all.
I therefore propose again that we scrap the list-of-authors-basis and the Key Arguments, and that we try to present the content (i.e. ALL the main facets) with very brief mentions of who made each proposal and when, and who supported each facet.
Wdford (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
We can definitely do that, but it might help if we first discuss whom to include or not even though we change we format (and I agree we should). We know now that a large number of the most fringe persons in the article were added by a disruptive puppet-master and defended through socks. Now that the socks are blocked and the puppet-master exposes, it might be easier to continue. No matter the format, people such as Carotta, Murdock, Salm or Ellegård should not be included. They most certainly don't satisfy WP:RS. There are definitely serious CMT proponents (Carrier, Doherty) but people like Carotta or Murdock are just raving conspiracy theorists who are on the fringes even of CMT. So in short, I fully support changing the format, but we still need to decide which proponents stay (and I'd say the serious/notable ones) and which go.Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Partial step forward, 20th century

Based on the quite extensive discussions, I've edited the article to partially take into account what we have discussed for several days. Partial, as I've limited myself to the 20th century. Looking at the proposed lists by Ian.thomson and Wdford, as well as my own comments and those of De Guerre, I found that there was still some disagreement over 21st century proponents, but relatively large agreement about the 20th century. Everybody, I think, agree that we should not present it as a list of names, so I did away with that.
I haven't deleted much (see below) but edited quite heavily. As we all agree it should be about the arguments, I've deleted quite a lot of irrelevant personal information for all authors (year of birth, year of death etc.). For details about the persons, we can look at the articles (and I've added links to some persons for whom links were missing), here we're interested in their arguments.
Here is how I've dealt with each person who previously was in the 20th century

  • J.M. Robertson – Ian wanted to cut him out, and I agree but Wdford found him relevant. I still think he should go, but I've kept him in for now.
  • John E. Remsburg – Same thing here, Ian wanted him out and Wdford in. For now, I've kept him in. There was a long and quite irrelevant list of all books that ever cited the Remsburg list. I removed that list, but kept all information about the Remsburg list.
  • W.B. Smith – everybody agreed Smith should go.
  • Arthur Drews - I think Drews is important (not least for his influence on the USSR) and I've kept him in as all agreed.
  • Paul-Louis Couchoud – merged with Arthur Drews, as all agreed.
  • G.J.P.J. Bolland – I really couldn't find anything even close to WP:RS for Bolland so removed completely.
  • G.R.S. Mead - Left alone, as we all agreed.
  • J. M. Allegro - Left alone as well, also as we all said.
  • Alvar Ellegård – Ellegård. Obvious delete, not notable and has not received any following even in CMT.
  • G. A. Wells - Obvious keep, the most famous proponent of the 20th century. I'm no stranger to extending this section.
  • Alvin Boyd Kuhn - Also a very obvious keep.
  • Francesco Carotta – Deleted. Very marginal, far from WP:RS and with no following even in CMT

This is a way to move forward, meant as a first step and not in any way as the final word. The 21st century remains to discuss, and I there could be more disagreement there, but it seems we pretty much agree on the 20th century.Jeppiz (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The draft I did included Remsburg (reduced to a few sentences in the 20th c. intro). I also ended up reducing Smith to the intro to Drews, as Smith influenced Drews. I did reduce Robertson and Bolland to just their names (rather than outright remove either), since we have articles on them. For the same reason of "we have an article on him," I reduced Ellegard to just a sentence in Allegro, but would not object to removing him (since his article, as it stands probably doesn't meet WP:GNG).
Otherwise, it does appear consensus is inevitable.
The idea of an approach based method would be preferable, perhaps only giving sections to figures who were responsible for particular arguments. Technically that could only mean Bauer, but could be broadened to mean "individuals who are known for elaborating on one of Bauer's arguments in a way that most others followed suit in." For example, Allegro's role in claiming that Jesus was derived from the Teacher of Righteousness tradition would make him stand out from Bauer, who places Christianity's origins in Stoicism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. though I say I'd prefer an approach-based article, I think that what we're currently working toward would be a good stepping stone to that. Eliminate the stupid and crazy, and then use what's left to rewrite the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a very positive step forward, and many thanks to Jeppiz for making this initial effort. It need polishing obviously, and I think it can be thinned out quite a bit more without losing anything of value, but its a great start. I'm sure we can do something similar with the 21st century stuff as well. We already have a basic agreement on most aspects - shall we implement those changes meanwhile, and then discuss any outstanding areas of contention a bit further? Wdford (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian and Wdford! Encouraged by your comments, I've attempted a similar thing for the 21st century now.Jeppiz (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Partial step forward, 21st century

Based on the same quite extensive discussions as for the 20th century, I've edited the article to partially take into account what we have discussed for several days, this time for the 21st century. Looking again at the proposed lists by Ian.thomson and Wdford, as well as my own comments and those of De Guerre, I've been quite cautious but edited quite heavily. As it should be about the arguments, I've deleted irrelevant personal information for all authors (year of birth, year of death etc.). I've partially rewritten the intro by including some aspects from Ehrman's book and removed what was mainly a long list of non-notable persons from a non RS. Here is how I've dealt with each person who previously was in the 21st century

  • Thomas Brodie – everybody agreed to clean up, which is what I've done. Still not complete. A quote from an Amazon page did not seem to meet WP:RS
  • Richard Carrier - Altenmann suggested removing Carrier, but both Ian and Wdford wants him in. I agree with Altenmann that the claims of Carrier that Altenmann has presented are so bad that they verge on being discrediting, but he is still important in the CMT. I've left him in, in full.
  • Earl Doherty – Ian said remove, Wdford said keep in full. As I've tried for maximal consensus, I've kept all cases where there was not consensus to remove, so Doherty is kept in full.
  • Tom Harpur – all agreed to merge. For now, he'll be with Kuhn but that section should ideally become a pagan-gods section
  • Christopher Hitchens – all agreed to delete. A highly notable person, but highly questionable if he was a CMT proponent.
  • Alexander Jacob – merged with the pagan-gods section, as all agreed.
  • Dorothy M. Murdock / Acharya S – all agreed to remove.
  • Robert M. Price – Kept in full, but the section about Price could be further cleaned.
  • René Salm – all agreed to remove (well, all except himself). If we have a section on Nazareth, Salm and Zinder could perhaps be mentioned in passing. (I say perhaps as the fact that they are not archaeologists who have not been involved in the diggings in Nazareth, but still consider themselves placed to lecture actual archaeologists who have done the actual work makes it far beyond WP:RS.)Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thomas L. Thompson – all agreed to merge into Harpur-Kuhn pagan-section.

RfC: Has the CMT been “annihilated” today?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is hard to judge: the statement is accurately reported but the source is somewhat dated. I suggest another RfC over whether the source itself should be included. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this RfC is to gather opinions on what to do with the first sentence of the Grant citation at the end of the “Criticism” section: “[The CMT] has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'” (which is itself a citation from the non-academic Roderic Dunkerley’s 1957 book Beyond the Gospels).

Even if it were true in 1977 (and how could it have been, since nothing that is “annihilated” survives another 40 years?) this statement by classicist Michael Grant is evidently not true today, for the CMT is very much 'alive' as we see from the section “Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT”[13] and from the section of the article "21st Century."[14] For these reasons, either this part of the Grant citation must (a) be deleted; or (b) if retained, then information must be added clarifying why it is not true today.

As we have recently been reminded through our recent lengthy feuding over the “no serious scholar” part of the Grant citation, it is never a good idea to advocate for known false content, or to deliberately retain such content in Wikipedia (even if the content is from a scholarly source)--especially through persistence, reverts, and edit warring. The strongest sanctions can be the penalty for such cases of ‘editing in reverse.’ In the final analysis, Wikipedia does its best to deliver up to date, verifiably correct information.Renejs (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The Grant paragraph is out of date and misleading and should go. I've clarified for the reader in this edit who said what when, but unless I hear a good argument for this anachronism to sit in a current description of the scholarship, I'll be deleting it in a few days. It now reads, accurately,

    Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant said, quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion and Otto Betz's 1968 opinion, the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars' (Dunkerley). In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' (Betz) — or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[215][216][217]

Seriously? Who cares what Grant thinks in 1977 about what other writers said even decades earlier? This is a tendentious misuse of an out-dated source. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%, Anthony, and certainly believe that the whole paragraph is indefensible today. But (as you see from the next entries) not everyone is on board. . . So we may have to go one statement, phrase--even word--at a time, taking the elements individually. It's a longer procedure, but more thorough.Renejs (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is Dunkerley specifically labelled as 'not an expert' and unlike Rene Salm, Earl Doherty etc.? Especially as Grant, who undoubtedly was an expert, apparently accepted Dunkerley's views. As for 'misleading', are you suggesting that there are more than a 'very few' scholars who posit it? I can find, on this whole page, Thompson and Brodie who can be considered 'serious scholars'. I'm doubtful that the revisions by Mr Cole meet NPOV as he seems to be trying to say that only non-scholars suggest it is a fringe theory, which is clearly not the case and is not tenable even using recent sources (Casey, Ehrmann). As for being annihilated - the mere fact that some people refuse to engage meaningfully with scholarship and repeatedly dismiss things that don't fit their worldview as lies does not mean that their arguments have not been annihilated. (Edited on mature reflection, because I've been quite worried on doing some research on Cole's behaviour - he has even suggested that Salm has 'subject expertise', which is not something I think most experts, would agree on although I admit I found only this on a Google search without plundering JSTOR for rebuttal articles). 109.156.156.186 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond to the part of the above comment which addresses the point of this RfC. The anonymous writer uses the famous double negative: the above "does not mean that [CMT] arguments have not been annihilated." I disagree, but that doesn't matter. What we need is somebody to show evidence that the CMT has been annihilated.Renejs (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The Grant quote is accurate. If you want to replace it with a quote saying the same thing, be my guest. Also, keep in mind that the CMT is fringe and that Rene is attempting to make it into a minority view, which it cleary is not. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
'What we need is somebody to show evidence that the CMT has been annihilated.'
It has been repeatedly shown. Casey, Ehrmann, Dickson, even Carrier have shown that normal historical methods dispense with the Christ Myth Theory (Carrier, of course, didn't let that stop him inventing a whole new, wildly implausible historical methodology to try and support his ideas). Merely refusing to engage with reality is not a refutation to that annihilation. But there - I am talking to somebody who thinks that (1) Earl Doherty is a scholar (2) Tom Harpur has a PhD (3) Maurice Casey wrote in support of mythicism (those three on the evidence of this talk page) and (4) that archaeological evidence that doesn't fit his pet theories doesn't exist (on the evidence of Ken Dark, whose work you claimed to be using). I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering, except insofar as I know how much wikipedia is used today and therefore I think it important to try and fight pseudoscholarship wherever I see it.

Most of the above is total POV: "Carrier uses "wildly implausible historical methodology"; the CMT refuses "to engage with reality". . . And yes, the writer is correct that Harpur lacks a PhD though he taught religion at the college level. But no, I never thought Casey "wrote in support of mythicism".

The only sentence which might address this RfC is: "It has been repeatedly shown. Casey, Ehrmann [sp], Dickson, even Carrier have shown that normal historical methods dispense with the Christ Myth Theory." In fact, they have not shown this at all. Carrier is a historian and also a mythicist, so his name in the foregoing list is a mystery to me because he certainly does not "dispense with the CMT" but actively espouses it (for the last several years, at least).

As for Ehrman, Brodie (Beyond, p. 229) faults Ehrman precisely for using unscholarly methodology in Did Jesus Exist? Brodie accuses Ehrman of not taking advantage of research since the 1980s and for basing his writing on research of the 50s--exactly what some people wish to do with the Grant citation today!Renejs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

'The anonymous writer uses the famous double negative'
True, but in some cases a double negative can be correct, as in this case. Your arguments have been annihilated. I believe you are a musician - it is a bit like a G double flat. Not used a lot, but remarkably effective in the right context (Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music springs to mind - that wonderful 'dark as Erebus' moment).

109.156.156.186 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment tl:dr It is accurate, balanced, in the correct section and should stay. I don't know that the positions on either side of this dispute have articulated their concerns very well. As best as I can tell, it seems that the objections lay in whether the quote is an accurate description of the current state of scholarship on the Historicity of Jesus and the CMT. While I personally find the arguments of Ehrman, Carrier, and especially Price compelling, it is my understanding that their views (and mine as well) are best classified as fringe. I don't have a citation on the issue but, as a personal rule of thumb, if one can name all the proponents of a particular position in a large topic area, then that position is certainly fringe. As a percentage of the scholarship, I would suspect that CMT proponents have convinced fewer people than the creationists have, and that is certainly a fringe position. I think the quote meets wp:weight, via it's accuracy, dating and placement in the article. --Adam in MO Talk 09:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I note your opinion on "fringe" (a different topic) etc. But the question here is: Has the Christ Myth Theory been "annihilated" in scholarship today? 'Annihilated' is one of the strongest words in the English vocabulary. It is very different from 'dispensing with something' (above) or "fringe." One notes that the Dunkerley quote in Grant uses the words "answered and annihilated." I think a good case could certainly be made that the CMT has been "answered" by mainstream scholarship. But how could it be "annihilated" if the CMT is still around--openly professed by a few scholars and increasingly taken seriously by others? Sure, there are lots of little bible colleges and places like Liberty University where everyone will say that the CMT has been "annihilated." But that doesn't make Carrier, Brodie, Price, Eisenman, Lemche, Thompson, Davies, et al just disappear! These scholars are still walking around and writing, even if conservatives wish to "dispense with" them. An objective view on this matter will take us out of the Bible Belt and will dispense with the word "annihilated."Renejs (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The prose of the proposed addition doesn't present the quote as if it were he were speaking for all scholars. The proposal, as it stands, communicates the findings of one author 40 years ago. Obviously CMT hasn't been "annihilated".--Adam in MO Talk 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The same ad hominem attacks as usual, I see. The repeated inisuations that people disagree because they are "conservatives" from "the Bible Belt". I don't think there's anything particularly conservative about relying on actual scholarship and trying to adhere to standard Wikipedia policies.Jeppiz (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't let this pass, Jeppiz. . . Standard Wiki practice is first and foremost to ensure up to date, verifiable content. I strongly suggest you give this some thought. The bottom line of this RfC is simple: "Annihilated" does not reflect the current state of the CMT. Adam has acknowledged this obvious fact. It's time for others to do so as well.Renejs (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone in this discussion (the title of which you set) said we should use 'annihilated'? It's a very strange weird in an academic discussion. CMT has been thoroughly debunked, though. It's an opinion almost exclusively held by non-experts in the face of almost unanimous academic consensus to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that Renejs is referring to "conservative" Bible scholars. That is an accurate usage of the term. As far as I know CMT proponents are all described as "liberal" scholars. The term is different than it's usage in politics. For example Robert M. Price is a "liberal" Bible scholar and a Mythicist but he is politically "conservative". I think this talk page could use a little good faith from everyone.--Adam in MO Talk 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You are correct, Adam. I was not being ad hominem which means to attack a person's character. In fact, I didn't mention anybody in the note of which Jeppiz accused me of being ad hominem--just places like Libery Univ and Bible Belt colleges. I was being very objective by saying what actually happens in such religiously conservative places.Renejs (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, your claim is just downright dishonest and you know it. I don't think there's a single US or UK university, conservative or liberal, Christian or atheist, where CMT has anything even close to majority support. There are literally a handful of academics in favor of CMT, which is precisely why the article devote most of its space to "non-experts with opinions". Trying to imply that this is a debate between "religiously conservative places" and "liberal places" (no matter how the terms are used) is quite simply wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CommentI think that my view is somewhere in the middle here. "Annihilated", is not an accurate representation of the current scholarship. But the proposed addition is not presented as though it were. The addition is in a criticism and accurately reflects the citation. Take for example two statements: "Creationism has strong scientific support." and "Ken Ham wrote that Creationism has strong scientific support." The first statement is patently false, the later is supported by sources. It seems that this is the same situation. CMT has not been annihilated but the statement "...Michael Clark claims..." is true. He did claim that. This is why it should be included.--Adam in MO Talk 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not enough to say, "Well, we're just quoting Grant and he really said that in 1977." Why? Because this section is supposed to reflect the contemporary criticism, not that from 1977! This is not a "history of the CMT section." Why should anybody today be interested in what a tangential scholar (Grant was not a biblicist) thought about the CMT forty years ago?
And here we have a problem. Until the very recent urging of myself and a few others, the Grant citation has always read as if it were from today. That's of course very misleading. Grant's statement slams the CMT so beautifully that a lot of people will fight hard to retain it--that fight is what's happening now. People have also fought to keep it as misleading as before--it's taken three weeks of fighting just to get the words "Writing in 1977. . ." added!
Since the "annihilated" part of the Grant statement is NOW patently false, it has to either (a) be deleted or (b) amended with some sort of additional explanation to bring it up to date. Here's one example:

Writing in 1977, classical historian Michael Grant asserted that the Christ-myth theory "has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'.[212] However, today a few scholars espouse the Christ Myth Theory (see above)[15], and an additional few describe themselves as “agnostic” in this regard. Grant also stated. . .

In other words, I'm not opposed to keeping the "annihilated" part in the Criticism section IF we also tell the reader how and why this has changed. (BTW, the rest of the Grant citation still has to be looked at.) Renejs (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Rene wrote "Why should anybody today be interested in what a tangential scholar (Grant was not a biblicist) thought about the CMT forty years ago?" I can see some merit in that argument. So keeping in line with Rene's idea that we're not interested in "tangential scholars" or people writing "40 years ago", I move we remove all those people in the article who aren't scholars, only "tangential scholars" and/or wrote earlier than 1980.Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to take Grant's quote out of the article, because a longstanding concern raised by some editors here is that the work of biblical scholars is biased and should therefore be disregarded. I don't think this is true by any means, but since Grant was a classicist, not a biblical scholar, he is a good illustration that by the standard methods of ancient history, there is no reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been such a long wrangle over the definition of "expert vs non-expert", I think it would benefit the encyclopedia to reword the sentence "quoting Roderic Dunkerley's non-expert 1957 opinion" to read "quoting author Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 opinion". Otherwise I can live with the Grant statement as it has been corrected - it is clearly wrong, but by quoting it in full and stating clearly that it is 40 years old, it accurately reflects the source and the reader can see how old it is and what it's made of. Wdford (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove "non-expert" - where are we getting this from, anyway? A non-academic book does not imply a non-expert author. It's not clear what constitutes an "expert" in this context, and in any case we would need a reliable source for the claim that Dunkerley is not an expert. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree - can we remove the words "non-expert" ASAP? Does anybody object? Wdford (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In this particular context, I don't see the point in keeping it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The words "non-expert" serve no purpose and only show an obvious bias.Lozen8 (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I have no knowledge on the subject and my opinion below is a general wikipedian's observation. I noticed the NPOV tag, looked into the article, and see three major drawbacks

  • My pet peeve: the subject of and controversy must be organized by arguments, not by persons who uttered them
  • As a corollary: the article is unnecessarily overburdened by personalia detail of the proponents, and this make is very hard to distill the actual arguments. IMO most of such stuff must be moved into the corresponding bios, leaving only what is directly relevant to the subject
  • Now, the NPOV tag. I don't know what the tagger had in mind, but I cannot help but notice that the "Criticism" section is ... (how to say it politely?) inadequate. In essence, it is just several rephrasing of "This theory is bullshit". This is not criticism. Criticism involves arguments. Were there any? -M.Altenmann >t 21:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Good points, all three. I agree fully with the first two, and have pointed them out myself. As for Criticism, we should keep in mind that CMT is about as academic as Creationism. Very few serious scientists put much effort into debunking creationism as they prefer doing research and debating phenomena that aren't known. We're in a bit of the same situation here. Few historians spend much time on CMT. For instance, the quite noted historian Dick Harrison has written a bit about it in columns in newspapers, but nothing in academic publications as there is no academic debate. His argument is a bit more developed than "This is bullshit" but in essence the same, he discards it as a conspiracy theory with no academic support. Biblical historian Bart Ehrman, who has written over ten books debunking several aspects of Christianity, has written a whole book debunking CMT in some detail, and we could of course present his main points in the criticism section.Jeppiz (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, about Richard Carrier: the "probability" conclusion is nonsense (abuse of mathematics, to write politely). Not to say that probability of 1/3 is actually very good, i.e., it does not lead to the rejection of a hypothesis (meaning ignorance of the author in maths). I look at the table of contents of the book (and nothing more, I must say) and would rather guess that its summary in this article looks like more as an attempt to discredit the author rather than to present his arguments. -M.Altenmann >t 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Carrier

(subsection split; the comment below is on my remark in the above -M.Altenmann >t 19:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC))

In my opinion "abuse of mathematics" is a good description of Carrier's use of Bayesian reasoning. Here's a quote from p. 600-1 of On the Historicity of Jesus (this is from one of the concluding sections): "In other words, in my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero. For comparison, your lifetime probability o fbeing struck by lightning is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Con­sequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus. Nevertheless, as my estimates might be too critical (even though I don't believe they are), I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the probability is better than that. But to account for that possibility, when I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3...with the evidence we have, the probability Jesus existed is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 and 1 in 3. In other words, less than 33% and most likely nearer to zero. We should conclude that Jesus probably did not exist." So I don't think what our article says is unfair to what Carrier argues, though of course it doesn't cover everything Carrier says... --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote. I don't see the above is fair to summarize as "where he attempted to compute a probabilistic estimate". It is called "wild estimate" rather than "compute". This math of 1/3 is akin to the old joke: "What is the probability to be hit by the lighting?" - "50%" - "Huh?" - "Well, you are either hit or not hit". If everything else what he says is of the same level of scientific research, I doubt this book deserves to be cited here. Are there any reviews of the book? (If none then probably it is not our job either.) -M.Altenmann >t 23:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really; when dealing with ancient history, you have to come to grips with the fact that it's full of uncertainties. It makes a lot of sense to present it in terms of plausibility, i. e., probabilities. Unlike historians in general, Carrier simply tries to formalise this – a kind of argument that historians use all the time. His assignment of probabilities is of course very rough; it cannot be any other way. The idea reminds me of the Drake equation, which is also very difficult to use due to the large uncertainties in the values to plug in, which in the end multiply. But when plugging in even the most generous numbers yields you no more than 1/3, while that may not be enough to reject the initial hypothesis (JC was a historical person), it is enough to inspire significant doubt: hence, to counter the general opinion that the historicity of JC is beyond question and doubting it is as crazy as creationism, Flat-Earthism or the moon-made-of-green-cheese hypothesis. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
But that begs the question, does it not, Florian, of whether Carrier's estimates are the most generous possible? It seems on the whole to be unlikely. After all, Carrier's numbers are more or less arbitrary. His approach is essentially 'I think these numbers are right, therefore they are right'. I will not deny that Bayes Theorem, under the right conditions, might yield useful results in historical research. Cliometrics, for example, where you have clearly defined data to plug in and are calculating the output based on a known set of parameters as a result. But in textual analysis, there are no numbers, so we rely on judgement. Under such circumstances, Bayesian calculations become garbage in, garbage out. This is particularly true if there is reason to suspect Carrier's judgement is faulty (which, due to his well-known bias, there is) and if there is reason to doubt whether he has interpreted his sources correctly (which, since the only relevant language he speaks is Latin, maybe a little Greek, is also true). Therefore, Bayesian logic fails as a way of interpreting this subject. Somebody else could use it, plug in different numbers based on their judgement and come up with an answer of between 50% and 99% probability (e.g. Bayes himself did...)
And before anyone arbitrarily deletes this, could I please remind everyone that I am not René Salm socking and am therefore perfectly entitled to comment? It would be very unfortunate if due to hypersensitivity leading to an accidental and rare injustice to the obnoxious [thought better of a swearword] the sanctions he so richly deserves had to be rolled back or softened in any way.109.156.158.20 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Uhm, he knows Greek very well, better than a lot of other people who feel entitled to speak on this topic; it's part of his education. You're essentially accusing him of incompetence for no concrete reason at all, which amounts to ad hominem and incidentally makes me question your vehement (and suspiciously anticipatory) denial of being Salm. And the "well-known bias" is hardly unique to him: all scholars are biased somehow, nobody is completely neutral and free of prejudice. Yes, the error bars are wide, nobody denies that, but as an ancient historian who has spent years studying this very topic, Carrier should be trusted to be able to judge just how wide they are. (Again, the underlying argument is completely ordinary, and most of Carrier's points are actually well-treaded ground, just not all very well known among biblical scholars, including even Ehrman in some cases; it's the attempt at formalisation and quantification that's new, and amounts to the introduction of a kind of rigour that wasn't there before, as arguments are usually much more intuitive.) Anyway, even a result of 50% or 75% probability would mean that doubts in historicity are very much justified, and not at all crazy. There's a point where the bad faith and the vicious attacks on the slightest doubt in the historicity of JC (or more nuanced views about what the real historical background of the Jesus figure could have been) simply become unreasonable. It's just common experience that religious founders who are said to have lived in ancient times are very shadowy figures; JC is hardly unique in that respect. As Carrier himself points out, there are several other figures of whose historicity there are significant (and very much mainstream!) doubts, such as Homer, Aesop or Pythagoras. As history is becoming a more methodically stringent endeavour, it is also increasingly recognised that many traditional accounts of Alexander's life and feats are dubious. That's simply a sign of progress: historians are less trusting in authority than they used to be, and more willing to question notions, including seemingly common-sense assumptions, that have long been taken for granted. This is all part of a general trend now. That nobody gives two shits about "Homer myth theories" or "Aesop myth theories" and certainly nobody denounces them (or "Moses/David mythicism") as "bullshit like creationism or the Green Cheese theory" kind of calls the whole "mythers are biased and historicist academics are not" argument into question, doesn't it? In light of the above, it sure does look like JC is treated as a special case or – to put it more figuratively – like a "sacred cow". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The ad hominem principle
If you read Carrier's work, you will observe that he (a) criticizes all his adversaries in an ad hominem fashion (for example, saying that their methods are 'fucked') and further, bases his argument on his own qualifications and experience. Which would be legitimate, if there were not doubts about his qualifications and experience.
'he knows Greek very well,'
He says he does. If it is no better than his knowledge of German, to which he has compared it, then it is very poor.
'You're essentially accusing him of incompetence for no concrete reason at all, '
Because I have studied his sources and found he has quoted far too many of them incorrectly - for example, he stated to support one point on German history, 'Irving has never denied the Holocaust, only that Hitler knew of it,' which is completely and utterly wrong and which there is good reason to think Carrier knew was wrong, as on a subsequent page he referred to the famous Irving v. Penguin Books libel case. In fact, in accusing him of incompetence, I am being quite generous.
'as an ancient historian who has spent years studying this very topic,'
Has he? I think you will find that he came to the CMT comparatively recently via the work of Earl Doherty. Previously, his work was on scientific development under the Caesars. Strangely, that's never been published.
'Again, the underlying argument is completely ordinary, and most of Carrier's points are actually well-treaded [sic: trodden] ground, just not all very well known among biblical scholars, including even Ehrman in some cases; it's the attempt at formalisation and quantification that's new, and amounts to the introduction of a kind of rigour that wasn't there before, as arguments are usually much more intuitive'
If it's well trodden, why is it in dispute? I think the real issue is that merely plugging more or less arbitrary numbers into a formula that you don't understand particularly well (again, Carrier is reluctant to say when or where he received his training) may make it look rigorous, but that does not by and of itself actually make it rigorous. Judgement, experience and a detailed technical knowledge are required for that. Does Carrier have it? Arguably not.
'As Carrier himself points out, there are several other figures of whose historicity there are significant (and very much mainstream!) doubts, such as Homer, Aesop or Pythagoras.'
Yes, but if I plug Carrier's numbers into Bayes Theorem for Hannibal, I also find much the same figures for his existence. I could also put up a case (a la Salm) that Carthage never existed until years after the Punic Wars, if I didn't mind disregarding all the inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Does anyone doubt Hannibal existed? Of course not! Because proving his non-existence is not a quasi-religious fetish. With Jesus of Nazareth on the other hand...
'In light of the above, it sure does look like JC is treated like a "sacred cow".'
No, it merely means that until mythicists use proper academic processes and treat their sources using normal historical processes, they will not be taken seriously. Trying to invent new and wildly implausible methodologies in which they do not have the requisite training in order to add a plausible veneer of scientific rigour to predetermined conclusions does not lead anyone to trust them.
'your vehement (and suspiciously anticipatory) denial of being Salm.'
The reason for that is that I had left some information about Carrier on the talk page earlier, including some links to commentaries on his work, which was deleted because one editor thought I was Salm. This action on his(?) part has caused fairly severe complications, which I have had to waste time trying to sort out. So this time, I was trying to prevent it happening in the first place.
'even a result of 50% or 75% probability would mean that doubts in historicity are very much justified, and not at all crazy.'
This is a point that has been made by Davies. However, I reiterate that by and large it's not mythicism itself that is the problem, it is the inept and all too frequently dishonest approach of its supporters that causes them problems. Trimming the article of the worst of them will undoubtedly improve it. However, Carrier is a figure where I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about inclusion/exclusion and that is why I was adding information to try and inform that discussion. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore it!
Have a nice day.109.156.158.20 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised how you guys are taking Carrier so seriously as to discuss him at lenght. OK. If you want it. Let us consider two numbers he gives: 1/12,500 and 1/3. "1/3" cannot be takes seriously because he says: "I cannot by any stretch of the imagination believe the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3", i.e., this number is his imagination; enough said. 1/12,500 looks more "impressive" and may make you think "wow, this guy must have done some no shit math!" However the biggest problem with maths for all kooks of all kinds since the Fermat's Last Theorem is that in maths, including probability theory, every step must be strictly proven. Otherwise you can prove that you were not born yet, (no laugh; it is a matter of numerous mathematical jokes). Whereas Carrier's book is full of mathematical nonsense, which you will notice as soon as you start taking his babble seriously. Here is an exercise for you. His major staring point is as follows (my summary) "if you have 10 equally respectable scholars which put forth 10 mutually exclusive hypotheses about the life of IX, then without any other prior knowledge we conclude that the probability of any of them be true is 1/10". Now, if you don't see at least three glaring nonsenses in this "mathematization", you are probably not qualified to discuss the subject. As a result, no matter how much smoke and mirrors is in the book, its conclusions are discredited by a single nonsense. This is the nature of mathematics. -M.Altenmann >t 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So, concluding, the ref to this guy must be removed from the article:

  • per WP:RS his book is not qualified as a reference on the subject, since it is clearly of low credibility (and don't tell me it is my original research: wikipedians judge the credibility of sources all the time)
  • per WP:UNDUE: one might try to admit Carrier as a representative of the research in the field. But here WP:RS kicks in again: we must have reliable secondary sources which discuss the book and its author. -M.Altenmann >t 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Ehrman, Carrier has graduate training in a relevant field (namely classics, not maths). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
His PhD is in ancient history, actually, and he apparently got pretty upset with Ehrman for saying it was Classics: [16]. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Carrier's most recent book is published by Sheffield, an academic press, so it passes WP:RS. I've only seen one review in an academic journal, by Raphael Lataster, in the Journal of Religious History, I think. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. His latest book is absolutely WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Hell, it's notable if only because it's actually the only SCHOLARSHIP (so far) advocating CMT. Even if his degree was in classics, I don't think this would matter. (I wouldn't use anything by Carrier as RS for the Bayes' theorem article though.) De Guerre (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I also have to agree that Carrier is RS. The quasi-math bit is dumb, but otherwise his work meets WP:RS. We can judge sources according to what other sources say about that source, but not with original research.
Do I think his work better addresses the question "did Christianity borrow more from an independent messianic tradition than second temple Judaism" than "could there have not been a messianic claimant with a dead common name?" Yes. -- But could I possibly oppose it's RS status as a work on the CMT? Not until both mainstream academics and CMT proponents (including Carrier himself) either disproved every point in it or else rephrase the remaining points as research into a pre-Christian messianic tradition (with no assumptions one way or the other as to Jesus's historicity). Even then, we would still have to mention that it was, for a time, regarded as the only mainstream academic work on the topic. Until then, it's RS enough that I suspect the existence portion of the Jesus article needs to be rewritten effectively as "the historicist mainstream vs Richard Carrier." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:We can judge sources according to what other sources say about that source, but not with original research.

Even if you are right, then:
  • If other sources say close to nothing about the book, then we have to dismiss the book as not reliable source, right?
  • We judge the source in areas where the writer is an expert. Clearly, he is not attested as expert in maths. Therefore all his conclusions about "probability" must be dismissed. You are welcome to cite historical arguments.
  • If some statements are provably nonsense or directly contradict well-established theory, then to use such texts as a reference in a tertiary source (encyclopedia) is a mockery of common sense, so I don't buy the "original research" argument. WP:NOR policy applies to article content, not to talk pages. We routinely judge sources regardless high esteem of the publishers: "reliable source" is a triune combination of text+author+publisher. Any of the three may fail criteria of WP:RS, and this is exactly the kind of "original research" wikipedians do 24/7. -M.Altenmann >t 07:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
What is your point actually? If you are suggesting that we delete the single paragraph about Carrier's probability calculation, I can live with it. If you are suggesting that the whole of Carrier must be deleted because you don't agree with his calculation, then no I disagree. What actually are you trying to achieve here please? Wdford (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I am an occasional visitor here. If he is otherwise recognized as a reasonable historical scholar, then just remove the probability calculation. -M.Altenmann >t 11:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism

Why is there a critism section when the I see "the opinions of scholars" being added throughout? Or, why are the opinions of scholars being added throughout, when there is a criticism section to put the opinions of scholars? Seems there should only be one or the other. That is, we have interspersed criticism, followed by criticism. Wickorama (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

weasel words

The sentence...

"Mainstream academia counters that the sources written "shortly" after Jesus's lifetime (particularly by Tacitus and Josephus) mostly appear genuine and are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed despite possible later tampering" contains the POV word "shortly" my preferred version would state...

"Mainstream academia counters that the sources written six to 8 decades after Jesus's lifetime (particularly by Tacitus and Josephus) mostly appear genuine and are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed despite possible later tampering."

The second version is accurate whereas the first version is open to interpretation and why is it in parentheses? Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur. The double quotes suggest that someone said shortly - but it isn't shortly. Which to me suggest that it should say exactly what it was, not quote the speaker and then mock them or imply they are stretching the truth, with double quotes. Wickorama (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "6-8 decades" would apply mainly to Tacitus and Josephus, so I'm not sure why it's in parentheses either. However, since this line is sourced, what does it actually say? Maybe we can use an exact quote? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

20C: 50 year gap

The 20th century section jumps from 1926 to 1970. Was there really a 50 year gap in mythicist theory? Ashmoo (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Christ Myth theories find virtually no support from scholars"

A user repeatedly inserts a "citation needed" tag after the above statement, despite the fact that it is sourced by a citation in the very next sentence. Whether the user likes the statement, or likes the source, is rather irrelevant (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for editing). If the user feels the source cannot be trusted, the onus is on the user to make that argument and to gain a consensus for it, as per WP:BRD.Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The proviso that Ehrman "recognizes that there are "a couple of bona fide scholars" who support the Christ Myth Theory" is misleading. He qualifies that description by saying "not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D, in the field of New Testament."[17] IOW they publish nothing in scholarly journals about their views. TFD (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely, and that is something we could well change. The motive of the user who keeps inserting the citation needed tag after "Christ Myth theories find virtually no support from scholars" would be welcome to present a reasoning, though. Especially as there is a quote, and a quote that eminently satisfies WP:RS (distinguished professor in the field, reviewing the field about the topic, in a book published by a major publication house).Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for referring to me as a "a user" instead of by name. Your ability to depersonalize people with whom you disagree is amazing. The Wikipedia:RS, as you reference, explicitly states under "Academic consensus": "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.". Please explain how using a single scholar's opinion does not violate that? His qualifications are irrelevant. It should be rewritten to suggest that "In Ehrman's opinion...", instead of as fact. Antman -- chat 16:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Humorously, the existence of this article disproves that very line anyways, since it lists a number of scholars who agree with this theory. Antman -- chat 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It lists about the only individuals who are both real scholars and Christ mythicists. "Virtually" means "almost," not "completely." Do you think that there's only a dozen people who have ever researched the historicity of Jesus or something? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, you need a source that demonstrates that a significant number of scholars do support the CMT. Otherwise, the Ehrman citation is sufficient. "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim," -- and I strongly recommend against arguing that Ehrman is a lightweight source. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ehrman does in fact directly say that almost all scholars hold the view that there was a historical Jesus, and that mythicism finds little to no support among scholars, so he meets the section of WP:RS you refer to. I don't really understand why people dispute this point since mythicists themselves complain about the lack of acceptance in academia.
also, people who are talking about scholars might do well to define the term. If it means someone holding a position at a college or university, I doubt that there are any mythicist scholars (at least, in the relevant fields, a scholar in biology, astronomy, or 20th century American history wouldn't be particularly relevant here). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you both seem to be pleased with your ability to cherry-pick what a "reliable source" is (such as the "Academic Consensus" section which you both repeatedly ignore), I am going to drop this until I am prepared to escalate it further. As it stands, I feel like you both have a bone to pick about this, so I don't feel like pushing it further. I will reiterate my point that WP:RS explicitly states that you require more than a single scholar's opinion, even if that opinion is that all scholars agree with their opinion, to make a broad claim like that. Antman -- chat 16:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're going claim that Ehrman isn't a reliable source, you need to show how it fails WP:RS or present additional sources to the contrary. Otherwise you're just being tendentious (i.e., you're the one with a bone to pick). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
How many reliable sources (saying "virtually all scholars") do you think would be enough? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Antman apparently takes offence at not being named. My bad. I fear Antman is only here to disrupt Wikipedia and push the WP:TRUTH. Despite the fact that there is a source, Antman keeps inserting a citation needed tag. That this is disruptive and in bad faith can hardly be doubted. The clear consensus (Bill the Cat 7, Ian.thomson, --Akhilleus and myself) has pointed out that there is a source, that the source is good and that the source is enough. That Antman refuses to WP:HEAR this is a problem. I hope I did not "depersonalize" Antman this time, which never was my intention.Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This is unnecessary hostility. This article is already a minefield and mucking it up with hostile conversation like this isn't going to help it get any better. Let's at least try to be objective and nice to one another. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Granted, though I don't think anything of it is inaccurate. I must admit to sometimes being a little bit exasperated by all these single purpose accounts who appear and decide the rules don't apply to them, because they are right. I have no intention of being hostile, but I think that describing Antman's behavior as disruptive is factual and proved by the user's edits.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I agree that this article is a minefield, that is only because of radical atheists and fringe proponents making it so. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Very true. This is a fringe theory with no academic support but passionate support from some people with deeply held beliefs. Any such article tends to become a minefield, as the fringe pushers cannot accept that scholarly expertise trumps personal opinion.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A bunch of anonymous (or semi-anonymous) individuals editing a wiki article on the origins of a living religion with millions of adherents (including some of the scholars being cited!) and entire industries built around it is going to result in a minefield. Let's try not to presume motives here.
From what I am seeing, I think we need to be reaching outside of theologians and philosophers, especially those with potential conflicts of interest going on (i.e. those who have written apologetic works or represent a Christian institution). For example, what are, say, modern folklorists and those working in early Classical religion or modern scholars specializing in comparative mythology saying about this? They're the ones we should be looking into whenever we're talking about the topic of "mythology". For example, I know that the parallels to Dionysus are still being made by those working in the field (and even appear in some introductory college works on the subject to this day!). I think we have a very one-sided article at the moment, probably because we're not digging deep enough into our secondary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Needless to say, you are perfectly welcome to search for other sources. However, your statement of "theologians and philosophers" is quite simply not accurate. Moreover, it is rather typical of what we see here, with a never-ending influx of conspiracy theorists convinced that the article looks the way it does because of some "Christian conspiracy" and that the truth could be revealed if it wasn't for that conspiracy. That is never a valid argument, neither here nor elsewhere (and I'm not claiming you're making it, no intention for strawman arguments). The actual citation we discuss right now comes from an outspoken non-Christian, who is deeply unpopular among Christians because of his many books revealing the many problems with the Christian history and tradition. As for Dionysus and any other aspect, we can only include them if they make it clear they fall into the Christ Myth Theory which is the topic of the article, we cannot invent that someone is a CMT proponent as per WP:BLP.Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I see. However, I recommend against comments complaining about "radical atheists" ([18])—comments like this can easily add fuel to the argument that the article is being policed by a handful of Christian editors with an interest in maintaining a New Testament narrative and with a lot of time on their hands. Due to the nature of Wikipedia, that is a realistic possibility that does not require a "radical atheist" editor to conjure up. Whatever the case, the hostility here needs to be removed from the equation altogether—this is a controversial topic for well-defined reasons and that's not going to change anytime soon. Wikipedia editors here who can't rid themselves of this hostility should think about taking a break and rethinking their approach. It's not going to help.
As the development of this article really should be preceded by the development of Jesus Christ in comparative mythology (there's going to be a lot more agreement regarding 'these episodes or elements seem to be influenced by or drawn from X' versus 'Jesus just didn't exist in any way shape'—the latter apparently being the scope of this article), I'll look around and see what I can do when I have the free time to sort through the databases out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article's historical content enough to form a new article?

withdrawn 01:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the quantity and quality of historical content in this article, sufficient to form a new article on the history of this topic? 14:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the question is a bit problematic. The real question should be whether there is enough material to write two different articles, and whether those two articles would be sufficiently different, and whether both would be relevant. My answer would be no to all three questions. We are dealing with a fringe theory with almost no academic support, meaning one article is probably enough; the history of a fringe theory is not really notable as such. The IP who is the only one wanting to split the article has not explained what this article should be if the history is lifted out. Jeppiz (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I the so called, 'IP who is the only one wanting to split', recuse myself from pointing out the transgressions of your comment. I state again, as I clearly stated before —after moving the historical content— as recourse to intractable new content objections, reducing this article to a stub would be a better solution. But let us stick to the question at hand, shall we? ——Is the quantity and quality of historical content in this article, sufficient to form a new article on the history of this topic? 74.136.159.171 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not familiar with RfCs. They are requests for comments, and you got my comment. No, no split. There is no need to create a new article and the proposal to do so fails to make a convincing argument. Creating a new article and reducing this one to a stub seems utterly pointless, and the discussion above makes it clear that there is a consensus not to split, making this RfC seem quite a bit like forum shopping. Jeppiz (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well said, Jeppiz. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Split

Shortcut

This article should be split by content between two articles;

  1. Christ myth theory
  2. The History of Christ myth theory

There is an overwhelming amount of history in this article which would make a substantial article on its own. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I don't think it is necessary. Since the Christ Myth Theory is currently nowhere near consensus, every proponent has a different motivation and stance. I think the History section should basically be the whole of the article. It is hard to have a non-history section because there is no single theory that can be summarised. Ashmoo (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. Richard Carrier has made an extensive analysis of the CMT summary issue, per his 2014 peer reviewed; On the Historicity of Jesus.
  2. Yes it is necessary that this article should be split by content between two articles. Even if you object to Richard Carrier's CMT summary. An Article stub would be better than a history article masquerading as an article on Christ myth theory.
  • Carrier sets forth five criteria for a minimal mythical Jesus:
  1. At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
  2. Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus 'communicated' with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspi­ration (such as prophecy, past and present).
  3. Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
  4. As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
  5. Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only 'additionally' allegorical).
"That all five propositions are true shall be my minimal Jesus myth theory." (Carrier 2014, p. 53. On the Historicity of Jesus) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC) and copyedit 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
But that's just Carrier's formation, isn't it? Many of the other scholars, both current and historical, had different ideas. Ashmoo (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I concede your point, that many other CMT and related scholars "had different ideas" is true. However the CMT summary issue is not overly complex, and will be greatly simplified by moving the gross amount of historical material to a more appropriate article. Even if you object, that a CMT summary is not feasible. Then reducing this article to a stub would be a better solution then maintaining the farce of this history article masquerading as an article on Christ myth theory. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose split I don't think a coherent argument has been made for why a split would be needed, certainly not if the only idea is to create an additional article just to expand on Carrier's writings.Jeppiz (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz, your Red herring claim, "the only idea is to create an additional article just to expand on Carrier's writings", is risible nonsense. Oh wait! you prefixed it by "if", so I therefore retract what I said, not. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Jeppiz. I think if the article did a better job of presenting a coherent summary at the beginning, there would be less dissatisfaction with the historical material. The sections on the history of the theory could certainly be pruned, too—the recent books on the subject have much more succinct summaries of the history. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not aware of any "dissatisfaction with the historical material" per se. However, I am aware that this article is a nearly perfect and a nearly complete article on 'The History of Christ myth theory'. I object to your suggestion, to mutilate this beautiful and well composed history article. The massive and comprehensive historical material in this article, should moved to the proper article, where it belongs and which is not here. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bill the Cat 7, your Insinuation that, "the only idea is to create an additional article just to expand on Carrier's writings", is also risible nonsense. Oh wait! you never actually said that, so I therefore retract what I said, not. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
See below, this discussion was closed in July... Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mitchell (1842) is a reliable source

Shortcut

Per Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources;
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

The proposed citation, labeled as [-Mitchell (1842) cite-] in the following article extract, is a valid citation:
  • [-Mitchell (1842) cite-] Mitchell, Logan (1842). The Christian mythology unveiled, lectures. Cousins. p. 151. Jesus Christ in the New Testament, has no reference whatever to any event that ever did in reality take place upon this globe; or to any personages that ever in truth existed: and that the whole is an astronomical allegory, or parable, having invariably a primary and sacred allusion to the sun, and his passage through the signs of the zodiac; or a verbal representation of the phenomena of the solar year and seasons. (Image of Title page & p. 151 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)

note: second printing —Mitchell, Logan (1881). "Lecture 5". Religion in the Heavens; or, Mythology Unveiled. Freethought Publishing Company. pp. 125–126. Jesus Christ in the New Testament, has no reference whatever to any event that ever did in reality take place upon this globe; or to any personages that ever in truth existed: and that the whole is an astronomical allegory, or parable, having invariably a primary and sacred allusion to the sun, and his passage through the signs of the zodiac: or a verbal representation of the phenomena of the solar year and seasons. (Image of Title page & p. 125 & p. 126 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The Basic Books source that's currently in the article, next to where the [-Mitchell (1842) cite-] is included is of equal reliability, unless a WP policy can be shown to say otherwise.

The addition to the article is sourced as per WP policy. Therefore, the burden of proof lays on Jeppiz and his ilk potential objectifiers to explain why it's not a reliable source, instead of just asserting it in a edit comment. Thus an explanation including quotes from the parts of WP:RS that regard this type of source as unreliable should be provided with any claim that this material is not a valid source as per WP policy. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC) & redacted per Jeppiz objection 18:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What on earth is this IP SPA on about?? "Therefore, the burden of proof lays on Jeppiz " The IP starts a discussion about an edit to the article I have neither commented, edited nor reverted and says some kind of burden of proof lays on me. Really? Burden of proof for what, and why? Jeppiz (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
M'bad bro, just thought you would want to stand tall on your previous work at Talk:Historicity of Jesus, guess not. Therefore I redact my initial comment and apologise for my erroneous presumption. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bart Ehrman tautology

The e-mail is a conspiracy theory pretty much like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (with atheist fundamentalists instead of creationists). Maybe it should be noted here that Ehrman is an atheist. I doubt that there is a reliable source for the conspirational claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Books

I added Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill. Since neither the book nor the author have a WP page, I included the ISBN. I don't know if this violates WP policy, since none of the other books in the list have an ISBN, but all the others have a WP page for either the book, the author, or both, so I included it to make it more easily found. Gil gosseyn (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding the book violates WP:RS and WP:DUE. Even though CMT is a fringe theory, it has serious proponents. A non-expert who publishes his own book is not enough (by far) to be included. Jeppiz (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that it was self-published, or that Amazon carries self-pub books. Read about it in recent Slate article. Sorry. On another note, the "Criticism" section seems awful definitive that CMT is wrong. While this may be your viewpoint, a more objective perspective would add some modifiers in those negation statements. As I understand it, WP articles are supposed to be non-partisan. BTW, Bart Ehrman's page says he's an agnostic, not an atheist. Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, this is a common misunderstanding. Wikipedia aims to be neutral, in the sense of being factually and dispassionately correct. However, as our policy for neutrality states (WP:NPOV), this does not mean creating a false balance between theories. Quite the contrary, NPOV forbids that. If a theory is either almost completely accepted by all experts in the field (evolution, global warming), then we say so and we give little or no voice to fringe opponents. If a theory is almost completely rejected by all experts in the field (CMT), then we say so and we give little or no voice to fringe proponents. That is being non-partisan. If there would be a big academic debate with several competing theories and we would report only one, then we would be partisan, just as we would be if we equated fringe theories with widely accepted theories. Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

An atheist, by definition, would be said to believe that Christianity is a myth. With a MINIMUM 7.2 million atheists (and growing) in the U.S. alone (not to mention non-Christian religions), I think would more than satisfy WP:DUE, and justifies a more neutral, i.e. less dismissive, tone in the Criticism section. When almost 20% of the U.S. population identifies as atheist, agnostic, or non-religious, even you must admit a lack of belief in the Christian myth is not a "fringe" viewpoint. Disbelief vs belief in Christianity is not a false equivalency. I think your bias is showing. Gil gosseyn (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn, it's time for you to WP:HEAR what others say. This article is about the question of whether the person Jesus lived or not, not about whether Christianity is a myth or not which is entirely different. Start acting a bit more serious and read articles before commenting on them. Further irrelevant rants like the one above will be removed, talk pages are for discussing how to improve articles. Please read WP:SOAP. Jeppiz (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it relevant where Celtic Druid had come from?

Other than, if somebody wants to make someone lose his repudation, it is a nice way to make him look like somebody who speaks about UFOs with no proof. What does Celtic Druids have anything to do with Chist myth theory, please?--Iskenderbalas (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I do see your point, but the 'problem' is that it comes from the same source as the rest. If it would be taken from a different source, I'd consider it completely irrelevant. But if that is part of the description Harpur gives of Wiggins, then why do feel it's relevant to exclude it? I'm not the one who added the sentence, nor will I revert you to put it back. Just saying I can see the logic of whoever put it there. Jeppiz (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Acharya S/ Murdock deserves more recognition here

Acharya S/ Murdock deserves more recognition here. She used to have her own section.

Scholars who've actually studied her work tend to be supportive:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" - Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S" - Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock,author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'." - Aron Ra

"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration." - Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology

Acharya S/ Murdock is the first and only mythicist to ever create a succinct and comprehensive position for mythicists:

The Mythicist Position https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ

Jesus Christ, Sun of Righteousness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faILHU82-Cw

Star Worship of the Ancient Israelites http://astrotheology.net/star-worship-of-the-ancient-israelites/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.147.1 (talk • contribs) 7 November 2015

We have discussed this and as per WP:RS, Murdock deserves no recognition at all. She's a self-published conspiracy theorist whose crackpot ideas are not taken seriously by scholars (people like Earl Doherty or Aron Ra are not scholars, no idea why you claim they are). Murdock is as relevant here as a self-published Holocaust denier is at Holocaust. Here, and elsewhere, we report what scholars say, not what self-published non-scholars may think about actual scholarship. Having to resort to Youtube and "astrotheology" rather says it all about how low the level is. Kindly read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE Jeppiz (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Just more of the same religious bigotry we've all come to expect here at Wikipedia and it's Christian minion editors out to shore up their faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means being dishonest. I just provided quotes from a biblical scholar with two ph.d's and a very highly respected Professor of Archaeology whose own book teaching archaeology cites her work in his latest edition. Earl Doherty is respected and my point with the Aron Ra quote is the fact that he has interviewed many scholars and other highly respected mythicists who concur that her work is in fact highly credible and should be taken seriously. The Youtube videos provide many links to great articles in the description box that readers will never find here because Wiki editors only post whatever trash they can find instead. So, you guys just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and know nothing about her or her work at all. You have an agenda, PERIOD! Same as always, just like you guys turned her own Wiki page into a biased, bigoted Christian hate-fest posting every bit of trash you can find but nothing from highly respected 30 year scholars who've actually read her work and do support it. So, all you have to offer on her and her work is defamation, libel and malicious smears - it's the credibility of Wiki and it's biased, bigoted editors whose credibility should be examined here and at her Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.147.1 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2015

Here is a professor from Carnegie Mellon University, Dr. Paul J. Hopper, a longtime scholar who has been publishing peer-reviewed articles in journals for over 40 years and specializes in linguistics who has peer reviewed Acharya's/Murdock's article but no mention of that anywhere at Wiki because Wiki only means to defame and libel her:

Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum Examined Linguistically: Greek Analysis Demonstrates the Passage a Forgery In Toto https://www.academia.edu/10463098/Josephus_s_Testimonium_Flavianum_Examined_Linguistically_Greek_Analysis_Demonstrates_the_Passage_a_Forgery_In_Toto

As if dealing with the abuse from Wikipedia and its editors influencing others to smear her too wasn't enough, she also has stage 4 cancer, probably in part due to all the stress of dealing with such abuse: https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/lsn9/d-m-murdock-acharya-s-s-breast-cancer-fundraiser

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.147.1 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2015

I've already informed you about WP:SOAP, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, yet you continue to violate all policies. For the record, just the other day I was attacked in the same way by an editor claiming I was part of an anti-Christian atheist conspiracy to shut out Christians. But that's how it is at Wikipedia, if we try to insist on using scholarship, we'll always get attacked by those like the IP above who insist their religious beliefs should take precedence over academia. Well, that's not going to happen. We report what reliable sources say. Self-published books by non-experts are not reliable sources, and having a PhD in linguistics does not make one an expert on everything (I have one myself, so I should know), only on the field of our research. So whatever a fellow linguist scholar writes always interests me if they write about linguistics. What a linguist writes about the historical Jesus is as far from RS as what a Biblical scholar writes about ATR harmony in Akan. Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Brodie

The current paragraphs on Thomas L. Brodie end with "The institute's website indicates the investigation is ongoing.[121]". But the wikipedia-entry for him finishes with "From the point of view of the Order, the matter is closed." So maybe it is good to reflect this in this article as well. I will not do it myself, but maybe this will be an impulse for somebody.Jelamkorj (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the Criticism section needs to be revamped

In my experience with Criticism sections of Wikipedia articles, they generally provide condensed accounts of reasons cited for doubts. Following that model, a criticism section of this article would consist primarily of specific problems people have claimed to identify with the myth theory. Such material is certainly present in the section currently. Several authors are quoted and/or paraphrased for their argument that the mythicists demand more proof for a historical Jesus than is generally available of required for historical figures from antiquity. Hoffmann is quoted making another point, namely that mythicists in the Jesus Project didn't demonstrate proper skepticism. However, apart from this, the vast bulk of the section is quotation after quotation of authors noting how rare (or career-damaging) mythicism is. I don't think such material should be the crux of the criticism section. Specific arguments for a historical Jesus, and/or more responses to specific arguments against one, would be more helpful. For example, Dunkerley stated mythicism has "again and again been answered and annihilated". If this is true, three or four examples of it happening would be more valuable here than yet another assertion that the mythicists have lost the argument. As Ehrman's comparison of mythicism to 6-day creationism is included, it's worth seeing how many specific points this Criticism section raises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.52.32 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also all the Criticism in the lead paragraph should be moved. One sentence noting that CMT is rejected by the majority consensus viewpoint is all that is appropriate for the lead paragraph 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point very well. The Criticism section looks quite differently than what one would normally expect. But in this case the section faithfully reflects the reality. You will nowhere find any scholarly work that would really deal with the thorough works of Price, Doherty, Carrier, or Brodie. Judging by the cited scholars like Ehrman, you should just believe that all these people are completely mistaken, their arguments have no real value, etc., but you should base this belief just on such quotes like the one about 6-day creationism or the one about "again and again been answered and annihilated". You would be looking in vain where and how are these studies of Price, Doherty, Carrier, ... annihilated. Therefore the Criticism section rightly looks like it looks; it thus indirectly demonstrates that the case of Christ myth theory is, in fact, completely different than the case of "6-day creationism" or so.Jelamkorj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact of the matter is that CMT is a fringe theory with next to no academic support, and WP:NPOV requires us to make that clear. Please note that this says nothing about whether it's correct or not and we do not say whether it's correct or not. What we report is what the academic consensus is. Jeppiz (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding. I certainly agree that there is no room for wikipedia editors to say if some theory is correct or not. The issue is that the claims like "mythicism has again and again been answered and annihilated" or the quotes like that by Ehrman on six-day creationists which is highlighted in the current Criticism section do not count as critical scholarly arguments per se in any academic discipline. Hence the reader who expects to learn something about the substance of the real scholarly arguments (in the Criticism section) is necessarily disappointed and/or confused. But as I also said, here it does not seem to be caused by some sort of sloppiness of the wikipedia-editors, but the section seems to correctly reflect the fact that in this academic discipline (if somebody wants to call it so) such claims are indeed used as if they were the scholarly arguments per se. A final remark to be fair: Surely not all people in the area behave like Ehrman, who is here viewed as representing the alleged academic consensus. It suffices to read, e.g., Professor Philip Davies (http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/dav368029.shtml, reference 21. in the current version of the article) who also says "... a recognition that his existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability". Jelamkorj (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, much of the criticisms covered in the article seem to amount to "its not popular" rather than anything resembling scholarly discussion or refutation. For example, the lack of decent secular sources on the likes of Pontius Pilate and Josephus is mentioned by Ehrman as proof than even famous people from this time period may have left little evidence to the archaeological or textual record. Which is certainly a reminder of the limitations of the historical record, but does not prove anything for any specific figure.

Robert Hutchinson apparently calls Vespasian "Vespian" and speaks about the lack of information on personal friends of the emperor from "Greek and Roman" sources of the day. In this case, he seems to ignore the fact that one of our primary sources on this emperor, Suetonius, was likely 10-year-old when Vespasian died and not really a witness to the events he was writing about. Another primary source, Cassius Dio, was born about 80 years following the death of Vespasian. This speaks to problems about the quality of our surviving primary sources and the possibility that relevant details were lost with various lost works of antiquity. It does not mean that the Gospels do not have the same problems other primary sources have.

Maurice Casey is a theologian, not a historian. This makes his view somewhat suspect to begin with. He makes two claims: 1) "belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain." That does not prove anything about historical reasons for this belief. Second, "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago". He does not bother to name a single "serious" scholar who managed to settle this argument.

Michael Grant does actually cite his sources and he is a historian. This makes him a better source than Casey to begin with. However he mentions "very abundant" evidence about the existence of Jesus. What evidence? Because none is actually named.

R. Joseph Hoffmann curiously suggests that mythicists lack "necessary skepticism". That does not deal with the arguments at all, it deals with the ones who use them. Are we to suppose that historicists are more skeptical of the sources?

I'd suspect this "serious" criticisms suggest more of an argument from authority. We are supposed to believe them because they are experts, not because they have any valid case to make to (as Grant put it) to annihilate the mythicist position.

While I don't personally subscribe to the Christ myth theory, the main problems with any historical Jesus argument is the same. The mythicists exploit these weaknesses:

  • A) There have been numerous contradictory attempts to establish what the historic Jesus is like, most reflect the favored theories of the scholars behind them, all are based more on historical conjecture than sound evidence, and all can be traced back to the same Christian sources that they decry as unreliable.
  • B) Even if a historical Jesus existed, he might be completely different than the figure presented in the primary sources and have little influence on the development of Christianity. In this case, the mythical Jesus and fabricated material may outweigh the importance of any factual basis for them. Dimadick (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Each criticism should be clearly noted within the context of the CMT viewpoint(s) critiqued.

  • Dissenting from or skeptical of the orthodox historicity position, but not a historicity denier.
  1. Historicity Skeptic, promotes historicity refutation.
  2. Supernatural Skeptic, promotes supernatural refutation.
  3. The Jesus character of the Gospels was based on the historicity of a surrogate(s).
  4. Jesus lived in a remote past prior to Year One.
  • Historicity denier.
  1. Jesus did not exist and no further theory elaborated beyond historicity refutation.
  2. Literary character rather than a historical character.
  3. Astrotheology-cosmological-pagan cult origin of Christ.
  4. Originated as a supernatural heavenly Christ.
  5. Gnostic.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ego eimi... Spartacus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_%28biblical_term%29

If this article allows fringe theory with next to no academic support, why not add in this plausible theory...

That the Jesus cult was an invented mystery religion that served as a cover story for the remnant followers and admirers of Spartacus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus

The cults public teachings, the cover story, was assembled from readily available myths and rituals (plagiarized).

The inner secret of their mystery, that which was only revealed to the the upper level members, was that Jesus (the INRI-TO Latin for inciter) was a mask for the real historical hero Spartacus. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inrito

The preached second coming was actually a plan for another rebellion by the cults growing network of hidden fanatical followers.

Even with all the secrecy, as the cult grew in popularity, Roman officials eventually found out the hidden goal of the cult, and so moved to defuse the volatile situation, with the sly trick of, if you cannot beat them, then join them!

A hostile takeover of the cult by the Roman officials.

Christianity was made Romes official religion, those who would bow to the Emperor were welcomed into Romes new holy church, the literal interpretation of the Christian cults cover stories were brutally enforced, cult members that had the insider knowledge and refused to recognize Rome were hunted and disposed of, charged with preaching false and misleading lies against Romes new found true faith. And the rest as they say, is history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:242C:6980:1837:AFCE:5FBD:DC3A (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Jacob

Alexander Jacob is an Indian-born academic and author. He received his Ph.D. in the History of Ideas at Pennsylvania State University with an essay on Henry More's A Platonick Song of the Soul. He has also worked at York University and conducted research at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Jacob has published numerous translations and studies. Among other themes, he has written on Cambridge Platonism in works such as Henry More's Refutation of Spinoza (1991), the history of religion in Atman: A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans (2005) and political philosophy in Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century (2001). Furthermore he has translated works by many authors, including Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Edgar Julius Jung. He has recently republished his work on the subject of Idealisic philosophy and the unconscious via Arktos, Der Naturae Natura (2011), and completed translations of books by Alain de Benoist, Pierre Krebs and Hans-Jurgen Syberberg for Arktos.

  • The Origins of Indo-European Religion, lecture delivered by Dr. Alexander Jacob at the London Forum on September 1, 2012. 1

Jacob has written on Cambridge Platonism in works such as Henry More's Refutation of Spinoza (1991), Ātman: A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans (2005), and Nobilitas: A Study of European Aristocratic Philosophy from Ancient Greece to the Early Twentieth Century (2001). Jacob suggests that the Jesus story was the Judaized, historicized version of a very ancient myth which can be described as archetypal (i.e. its origins ultimately lie rooted in our human collective unconscious).

Question: What CMT issues are related to Alexander Jacob ? or is his work more apropos for a different article ? like Jesus in comparative mythology 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Except there is not one shred of evidence for the existence of the collective unconscious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'mythical DIETY'

This should obviously read 'mythical DEITY'. I'd change it myself, but it's part of a link which may be damaged if I try to edit it. Could someone who knows how to edit links please do the necessary?213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jeppiz (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Per Thomas L. Thompson: WP:FRINGE claim to rv valid edits

claimed as WP Fringe Current 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thomas L. Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen, is a leading biblical minimalist among a group of like-minded scholars including Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R. Davies, and Keith W. Whitelam and others who assert that the Hebrew bible cannot be treated as history (see Historicity of the Bible).

While a student at University of Tübingen in the 1970s, his PhD dissertation on the quest for the historical Abraham was rejected by his examiner Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) since it went against Catholic theology.[ref.1] He was invited to finish his degree at Temple University in Philadelphia where he received his PhD summa cum laude.

In the 1999 book, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past Thompson deals with general historiographical issues, including the importance of understanding the types and purposes of different biblical stories and the dangers of treating myth and poetry as history.

In the 2007 book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David,[ref.2] Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson however, does not draw a final conclusion on the historicity or ahistoricity Jesus. He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009 which was disbanded due to the cancellation of funding in relation to issues about the ahistoricity Jesus.[ref.3]

Thompson and Thomas Verenna edited the contributions from a diverse range of scholars[ref.4] in the 2012 book Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus.[ref.5] Writing in the introduction, "The essays collected in this volume have a modest purpose. Neither establishing the historicity of an historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods.[ref.6] In "Part II: The Epistles of Paul", Mogens Müller argues that the Epistles confirm the historicity of Jesus and Thomas Verenna argues that the Epistles confirm the ahistoricity of Jesus.

Thompson published Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son? A Response to Bart Ehrman in a 2012 online article[ref.7] noting "I respond here to B. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazereth" with reference to Is This Not the Carpenter?, he forcefully rejected Bart Ehrman's mischaracterization of his views and the label "mythicist", writing "Ehrman pompously ignores my considerable analytical discussion, which was rooted in a wide-ranging, comparative literary classification and analysis of the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern inscriptions. Apparently to him, the more than 40 years I have devoted to research in my study of the primary fields of Old Testament exegesis, ancient Near Eastern literature and ancient history—not least in regards to questions of historicity−leaves me unqualified."

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen is the author of a number of books critical of the historicity of the Old Testament. Thompson claims that his PhD dissertation at University of Tübingen on the quest for the historical Abraham was rejected by his examiner Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) since it went against Catholic theology. He was invited to finish his degree at Temple University in Philadelphia where he received his PhD summa cum laude. In his book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson, however, does not draw a final conclusion if Jesus was real or not, and in a 2012 online article, he forcefully rejects Bart Ehrman's mischaracterization of his views and the label "mythicist". He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009.

During the 21st century, the Christ myth theory has become more widespread because of the Internet, but also met with greater criticism. Professor Bart D. Ehrman, rejecting the Christ myth theory, states that "The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet" but Ehrman also recognizes that there are "a couple of bona fide scholars" who support the Christ myth theory.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks for the summary. And the reason I reverted the large-scale changes should be pretty clear. Apart from being WP:FRINGE (which I believe it to be), the version on the left also violated some very basic policies such as WP:RS (using some highly questionable sources) and some strong WP:BLP violations (accusing Joseph Ratzinger of failing students just because he disliked their conclusions). Jeppiz (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Which sources are WP:RS ?
[ref.1] Thompson's op-ed about critical scholarship on bible intern.com [ref.2] http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/thomas-l-thompson/the-messiah-myth-the-near-eastern-roots-of-jesus-and-david-9780712668439.aspx [ref.3] "Some Thoughts on the Demise of The Jesus Project". The Jesus Puzzle. Earl Doherty. Retrieved 29 March 2016. "I am not party to all of the factors that contributed to its [Jesus Project] collapse, but it seems to me that one of the principal difficulties it faced was in regard to the question of the historical existence of Jesus." [ref.4] Table of Contents [ref.5] Thompson, Thomas L.; Verenna, Thomas S. (2012). "Is this Not the Carpenter?": The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus. Equinox. ISBN 978-1-84553-986-3. [ref.6] Thomas L. Thompson; Thomas S. Verenna. "‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ — Introduction". The Bible and Interpretation. Retrieved 29 March 2016. [ref.7] http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tho368005.shtml
96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You can read WP:RS, although it changes a bit from topic to topic. An article in a respected newspaper would usually be WP:RS on current affairs but not necessarily WP:RS on academic subjects. With regards to Jesus, the best publication is by a Professor in the field, by an established academic publisher and peer-reviewed. Please note that while Thompson is a specialist on the old testament, that does not make him a specialist on the new testament just like being a historian specialist on Genghis Khan is not a specialist on Mahatma Gandhi. As for Verenna, he is not RS on anything in this field, he's a man with opinions, not a scholar, and the same thing for for Earl Doherty. This does not mean they cannot be right, that's not what RS is about. As for Thompson (or anyone else) making claims about themselves, these claims should be backed up by independent sources or we should indicate that it's just a claim from the person concerned.To take a relevant example. Both Thomas Thompson are Bart Ehrman are scholars, both of them publish both on the old testament and the new testament. The difference is that Thompson is a scholar on the old testament (implies knowledge of the old Hebrew language, ancient Egypt, Cananite legends, ancient Israel), Ehrman on the new testament implies knowledge of the Koine Greek language, Roman Israel, Gnosticism, apocalyptics). What Thompson writes about the old testament is WP:RS, but not what he writes about the new testament, and what Ehrman writes about the new testament is WP:RS, but not what he writes about the old testament. Both Thompson and Ehrman are noted scholars, both of them have lots of opinions about their own field and about the other's field. They are both RS in their own filed, not RS in the other's field. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Therefore the first & third paragraph are WP:RS:

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen, is a leading biblical minimalist among a group of like-minded scholars including Niels Peter Lemche, Philip R. Davies, and Keith W. Whitelam and others who assert that the Hebrew bible cannot be treated as history (see Historicity of the Bible). [...] In the 1999 book, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past Thompson deals with general historiographical issues, including the importance of understanding the types and purposes of different biblical stories and the dangers of treating myth and poetry as history.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, no RS issue there. I don't see how it's WP:DUE, though. This isn't an article about Thompson, it's about the Christ Myth Theory. That paragraph deals with the views of Thompson and others on the Hebrew bible, not the new testament. Again, being an expert on the old testament does not make one an expert on the new testament. Jeppiz (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph issue that you noted was already extant prior to 18 February 2016 and is not related to any current edit.

Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen is the author of a number of books critical of the historicity of the Old Testament. While a student at University of Tübingen in the 1970s, his PhD dissertation on the quest for the historical Abraham was rejected by his examiner Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) since it went against Catholic theology.[Ref.Thompson's op-ed about critical scholarship on bible intern.com] He was invited to finish his degree at Temple University in Philadelphia where he received his PhD summa cum laude.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
claimed as WP Fringe Current 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In the 2007 book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David,[ref.2] Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson however, does not draw a final conclusion on the historicity or ahistoricity Jesus.

He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009 which was disbanded due to the cancellation of funding in relation to issues about the ahistoricity Jesus.[ref.3]

In his book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson, however, does not draw a final conclusion if Jesus was real or not

[..]

He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009.

The fourth paragraph in regards to the The Messiah Myth (2007) had changes that are not WP:Fringe and in regards to commenting on the the Jesus Project, Earl Doherty is not WP:Fringe. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The sixth paragraph is not WP:Fringe:

Thompson published Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son? A Response to Bart Ehrman in a 2012 online article[ref.7] noting "I respond here to B. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazereth" with reference to Is This Not the Carpenter?, he forcefully rejected Bart Ehrman's mischaracterization of his views and the label "mythicist", writing "Ehrman pompously ignores my considerable analytical discussion, which was rooted in a wide-ranging, comparative literary classification and analysis of the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern inscriptions. Apparently to him, the more than 40 years I have devoted to research in my study of the primary fields of Old Testament exegesis, ancient Near Eastern literature and ancient history—not least in regards to questions of historicity−leaves me unqualified."

96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Going on at such length about these authors is giving undue emphasis to fringe viewpoints. Concision is better, anyway--how many people reading this article are interested in a back-and-forth between Ehrman and Thompson? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As to undue emphasis, Yes indeed, why would anyone be interested in the opinion of Thompson, a scholar of the highest rank, who has studied the historicity of the Patriarchs for more than 40 years and is now applying his scholarly expertise to studying the possible historicity/ahistority of Jesus and with this new scholarly work then presented in an article concerning the ahistority thesis of Jesus; in a section named "Thomas L. Thompson". The academic "back-and-forth" can always be put in a ref quote to shorten the section, but it is certainly not a WP:Fringe contribution to this article. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is getting repetitive. There is no such thing as a universal expert/RS. Even if Thompson were a scholar of the highest rank in his field (and most people in his field would dispute that), it would be completely irrelevant outside that field. Once again, and try to WP:HEAR, Thompson's field is early Israelite history. What he has to say about the Patriarchs definitely does satisfy WP:RS. But being an expert at the Patriarchs does not make one an expert on Jesus, not anymore than being an expert on Arthurian Legends make one an expert on Clement Attlee. Jeppiz (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Your hyper-specificity on historicity expertise in regards to the historicity/ahistoricity of Jesus is nonsense. Your are attempting to establish a false context that only experts that have expertise in a specific field are WP:RS by using specious examples. Try to WP:HEAR that a horse warfare expert is WP:RS on how Ghengis Khan may have used his horses when the preserved written records on the subject are lost or unreliable. Please list the notable Jesus historicity experts inside that field. The sixth paragraph is not WP:Fringe 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think this boils down to you lacking knowledge about the field. The so-called "Bible" is a collection of very different books written during more than 1000 years in different countries and in different languages. Let's forget the bible for a while, as it's just a coincidental collection of books. Is there any reason to state that an expert on Canaanite history and mythology should be an expert on Greco-Roman Judea 1000 years later? Jeppiz (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The issue is historicity, not history as in preserved records, Please list the notable experts who have published academically peer reviewed boks on the historicity of Jesus using the most current scholarship available on the subject. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph is not WP:Fringe. Ref quotes can be used to shorten it.

Thompson and Thomas Verenna edited the contributions from a diverse range of scholars[ref.4] in the 2012 book Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus.[ref.5] Writing in the introduction, "The essays collected in this volume have a modest purpose. Neither establishing the historicity of an historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods.[ref.6] In "Part II: The Epistles of Paul", Mogens Müller argues that the Epistles confirm the historicity of Jesus and Thomas Verenna argues that the Epistles confirm the ahistoricity of Jesus.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed section per RfC about the length of sections on Thompson

Proposed Current 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen, is a leading biblical minimalist among a group of like-minded scholars whose work on the Historicity of the Bible shows that the Hebrew bible cannot be treated as history. In his 1999 book, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past Thompson deals with general historiographical issues, including the importance of understanding the types and purposes of different biblical stories and the dangers of treating myth and poetry as history.

In the 2007 book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David,[ref.1] Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson however, does not draw a final conclusion on the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus. He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009 which was disbanded after the cancellation of funding in relation to issues about the ahistoricity of Jesus.[ref.2]

Thompson coedited the contributions from a diverse range of scholars[ref.3] in the 2012 book Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus.[ref.4] Writing in the introduction, "The essays collected in this volume have a modest purpose. Neither establishing the historicity of an historical Jesus nor possessing an adequate warrant for dismissing it, our purpose is to clarify our engagement with critical historical and exegetical methods.[ref.5]

In the 2012 online article by Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son? A Response to Bart Ehrman, in reference to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazereth, he forcefully rejects Ehrman's mischaracterization of his views and the label "mythicist".[ref.6]

Thomas L. Thompson, Professor emeritus at the University of Copenhagen is the author of a number of books critical of the historicity of the Old Testament. Thompson claims that his PhD dissertation at University of Tübingen on the quest for the historical Abraham was rejected by his examiner Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) since it went against Catholic theology. He was invited to finish his degree at Temple University in Philadelphia where he received his PhD summa cum laude. In his book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Thompson argues that the biblical accounts of both King David and Jesus of Nazareth are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature. For example, he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is taken directly from the story of the dying and rising god, Dionysus. Thompson, however, does not draw a final conclusion if Jesus was real or not, and in a 2012 online article, he forcefully rejects Bart Ehrman's mischaracterization of his views and the label "mythicist". He was a fellow of the short-lived Jesus Project from 2008 to 2009.

During the 21st century, the Christ myth theory has become more widespread because of the Internet, but also met with greater criticism. Professor Bart D. Ehrman, rejecting the Christ myth theory, states that "The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet" but Ehrman also recognizes that there are "a couple of bona fide scholars" who support the Christ myth theory.

*[ref.6] Thompson, Thomas L. (July 2012). "Is This Not the Carpenter's Son? A Response to Bart Ehrman". The Bible and Interpretation. Mark Elliott, Patricia Landy. Retrieved 1 April 2016. Ehrman pompously ignores my considerable analytical discussion, which was rooted in a wide-ranging, comparative literary classification and analysis of the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern inscriptions. Apparently to him, the more than 40 years I have devoted to research in my study of the primary fields of Old Testament exegesis, ancient Near Eastern literature and ancient history—not least in regards to questions of historicity−leaves me unqualified.

 

96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC) & Redaction 16:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Richard Carrier: WP:FRINGE claim to rv valid edits

claimed as WP Fringe Current 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Carrier, New Atheism activist and proponent of the Jesus myth theory wrote a scathing review of Bart D. Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist in 2012 which resulted in lengthy responses and counter-responses on the Internet.

Carrier argues in his 2014 book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt,[ref.1] that there is insufficient Bayesian probability, that is evidence, to believe in the historicity of Jesus. Furthermore he argues that a celestial Jesus figure was probably originally known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture which were then crafted into a historical figure, to communicate the claims of the gospels allegorically. These allegories then started to be believed as fact during the struggle for control of the Christian churches of the first century.

Carrier wrote the foreword and afterword for Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.[ref.2] The 2015 book by Raphael Lataster compares the claims of Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and Richard Carrier and was positively reviewed by atheist author David Fitzgerald, who wrote that the book "doesn’t just inform and invigorate the debate – arguably, it settles it." Fitzgerald additionally notes Lataster's excoriation of Bart Ehrman for his propensity to uncritically appeal to hypothetical sources.[ref.3] Lataster previously wrote the only peer reviewed book review on Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.[ref.4]

Richard Carrier, New Atheism activist and proponent of the Jesus myth theory wrote a scathing review of Bart D. Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist in 2012 resulted in lengthy responses and counter-responses on the Internet. Carrier holds the view that it is more likely that the earliest Christians considered Jesus to be a celestial being known only through revelations rather than a real person. In 2014 Carrier released a book, On the Historicity of Jesus, where he gave a probabilistic estimate that Jesus was a historical figure: "With the evidence we have, the probability Jesus existed is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 and 1 in 3".

96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you've made it abundantly clear by now (both here and elsewhere) you do not know what WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE and WP:NOTABILITY mean. Most of your repetitive comments boil down to you thinking that if something exists in writing, no matter how obscure, it should be on Wikipedia. That's not the case, and there's really not that much more to add. Carrier is fringe, but nobody had suggested removing either him or Thompson, just keeping the length to what is due. Jeppiz (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The issue is historicity, not history as in preserved records. Please list the notable experts who have published academically peer reviewed books on the historicity of Jesus using the most current scholarship available on the subject.96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It's getting a bit tiresome to explain all things related to academia to you all the time, I'm sure you can read up yourself. What if you finally stated what you want to do with the article instead of these constant, tiresome and (to be frank) infantile insinuations. But to name a few notable academic experts (instead of people like Verenna who is not academic, not notable and not an expert), with somewhat diverging views, there is (in alphabetical order)
Could I end by encouraging you to start treating Wikipedia seriously instead of some kind of teen chat forum? Thanks Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
So per Amy-Jill Levine; Dale C. Allison Jr.; John Dominic Crossan (5 November 2006). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00992-9.
Then John Dominic Crossan can also be added to the above list of experts ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Cossan is a good author, knowledgeable, thought-provoking, interesting to read. I'm not sure he has either a PhD or an academic position, though. If he has a PhD, he could very well be added to the others. Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Crossan is one of the most influential scholars on the historical Jesus around today; among other accomplishments, he's a co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. He's a fine source for this article or any other involving the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
--Akhilleus, I agree that Crossan is a good source and nobody has even argued that. My comment was in response to the IP, who in turn had asked me to list some experts. Still, I would disagree that Crossan is among the most influential scholars. As I said, he's a great writer, interesting and personally I like reading him more than many others. However, he does not seem to make much of an influence right now, his positions remain very much minority positions. (This as a general comment; again, nobody has said we should not cite Crossan. Then again, this is the CMT article and Crossan certainly isn't a CMT proponent.) Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I think adding "With the evidence we have, the probability Jesus existed is somewhere between 1 in 12,500 and 1 in 3", without explaining what that range of probability means or how that conclusion is calculated, is very incomplete. Are there other scholars that make these kinds of calculations? The article should include a footnote about Carrier's method and assumptions as well as noting how accepted his calculations are. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Strong WP:NPOV violation

The article in its current format, after numerous recent and pointy changes, violates the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV. According to our policies, "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." This is something this article now fails. Through persistent changes, mainly by one IP, the proponents have steadily become inflated while the mainstream view has been phased out. Rather then reporting what mainstream scholarship thinks, the article now is devouted to presenting all Christ myth theory and inflate their importance, no matter how far removed they are from the academic field of the historical Jesus and no matter what their academic standing is. At the same time, the mainstream view has been all but deleted. What this article should do is to explain what the CMT is and briefly name the main arguments, as well as making it clear that this "conspiracy theory" (in the words of one leading historian) has very little academic support. Currently, the article completely fails all of that. Jeppiz (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You wrote:

Quite apart from the fact that Carrier is relevant for the CMT [Christ myth theory] article but WP:FRINGE here [Historicity of Jesus], [...] Having said that, Carrier is already given way too much space in this article [Historicity of Jesus] and should be reduced considerably according to WP:NPOV. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." CMT [Christ myth theory] is such an ancillary article, this one [Historicity of Jesus] is not. Jeppiz [Talk:Historicity of Jesus] 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk about WP:You can't have your cake and eat it too! First you say that even a marginal summary of Carrier's view is to much on [Historicity of Jesus] while asserting that [Christ myth theory] is the appropriate ancillary article. Then in [Talk:Christ myth theory] you assert otherwise. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's just you misunderstanding again, or deliberately using a strawman argument. Of course we should include Carrier here. We could even extend Carrier's view here, as he is almost the only real scholar in the field truly supporting CMT. So everything you wrote above is beside the point. What I emphasized is that this article should make it clear, already in the introduction, what the academic mainstream consensus is. Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
What reference would you use to show what the mainstream consensus is? Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Mainly the same that are used in the consensus lead of the article Jesus

  • Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically. In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[1] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[2] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[3] James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[4] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[5] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.
  2. ^ Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.
  3. ^ Price, Robert M. (2009). "Jesus at the Vanishing Point". In Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (eds.). The Historical Jesus: Five Views. InterVarsity. pp. 55, 61. ISBN 978-0-8308-7853-6.
  4. ^ Sykes, Stephen W. (2007). "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus". Sacrifice and Redemption. Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-521-04460-8.
  5. ^ Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.
I think the problem with this article is how is it different than the articles on the historicity of Jesus and you have to consider the miracles. Did the historical Jesus perform miracles? Hard to find consensus for the miracles, i.e., can science prove someone walked on water, changed water into wine? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The premise is wrong. There is not just one Christ myth theory but many Christ myth theories – many that have been discredited decades ago. Discussions about who is an academic and who is not avoids everything about the variety of fringe ideas. For example, Helena Blavatsky wrote that Jesus was a myth because Apollonius of Tyana was not a myth (yup a critical reasoning whopper), or John Allegro wrote that Jesus was a myth because proto-hippies, 2000 years ago, consumed psychoactive mushrooms (yup you guessed right: it was written in the late 1960s), or Edward Carpenter and his zodiac ideas (yup a confusion between son and sun works best in a language like English in which they are homophones). These are part of the spectrum of Christ myth theories but are excluded here. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, BoBoMisiu. Lumping all "myth" proponents together gives the wrong impression. There is of course a difference between the self-published conspiracy theorists who see Jesus as an Egyptian God and the actual researchers, some of whom argue Jesus lived but we cannot know basically anything about him. Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Raquel Baranow, I'd say the academic consensus is very strong that the miracles are not historical. I know of no serious scholar who argue Jesus walked on water or changed water into wine. Basically, the extremes are only taken by fundamentalists, whether fundamentalist atheists who claim Jesus never existed and fundamentalist Christians who see the Gospels as literal truth. Neither group find much support in serious academia, except for the lone examples both groups parade (much like this article now). Academics broadly agree the man Jesus existed, but of course reject as ahistorical both miracles and resurrection. Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Trying to insert quotes from the Historicity of Jesus lead paragraph is just your way of pushing WP:TRUTH, using outdated scholarship from 1977 is not even close to being WP:NPOV. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
IP, could you for once try to have the honesty to address the argument instead of always resorting to your ridiculous strawmen. One of those sources is from 1977, I agree that's old. But again, that is one. There are sources from 2011 and 2012 saying very clearly what the consensus is. As for your accusation of WP:TRUTH (an essay, not a policy), well I'm actually happier "pushing" the well-sourced truth that there is a broad academic consensus than pushing a conspiracy theory. Jeppiz (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

How to clarify the modern term ahistoricity in the context of the ahistoricity of Jesus

In modern scholarship the term ahistoricity is often applied in reference to non-historicity. Similar to the term atheist meaning without a deity or deities, the term ahistoricity in the context of the ahistoricity of Jesus, means without historicity for Jesus.

Thus the single argument:

  • the ahistoricity of Jesus is true.

can be used to replace the following 2 arguments:

  • the New Testament has no historical value.
  • there are no non-Christian references to Jesus dating back to the first century.

Therefore the Christ myth theory in the context of ahistoricity is:

  • that the ahistoricity of Jesus is true.
  • that the origination of Jesus as a mythical deity is true.

The term ahistoricity needs to be clearly defined in the way it is used as a precise and exact term in modern scholarship. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@96.29.176.92: no, the premises that you point to may be correct but remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That "the ahistoricity of Jesus is true" does not follow. For example, I saw a video about the history of punk rock. According to the documentary, the written historical sources ended for a period of time until Green Day appeared seemingly out of nothing. Things happened during those undocumented years that interviews in the documentary with musicians shed light on – that would fail your reasoning because the video relied on musicians instead of non-musician references dating to that period. I do not think any reviewer would term the events and people and music of that undocumented time as ahistorical. Moreover, no reviewer would say that Green Day appeared out of nothing. Mind you, I am talking about things that happened in my lifetime and not 2000 years ago – i.e. hundreds of years of losing things to history. If I wrote about what I saw in the video, and a hundred years in the future the video was gone but someone read that, it would be reasonable to believe that punk did not disappear but was nevertheless underground and undocumented. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. that the ahistoricity of Jesus is true. (per CMT, this has to be true)
  2. that the origination of Jesus as a mythical deity is true. (if this is false then the ahistoricity of Jesus can still be true) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This section is unnecessary. The article should explain what the CMT is. It should not be written as if words like "ahistoricity" are technical terms in need of precise definitions. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations or a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions. or a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements. or an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc. Yeah I see your point, no need of "need of precise definitions" 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If the article were about a scientific theory where writers used terms in a precise way, you'd have a point. But the CMT isn't like that at all; most of the people who write about it don't define their terms at all, and those who do aren't precise. Note that there's a difference between defining terms (individual words or phrases) and defining theories or ideas (which is what Carrier was doing in the part of his book you cited). Any attempt to define a term such as "ahistoricity" in this article needs to be drawn directly from a source, otherwise you're violating Wikipedia's no original research rule, particularly WP:SYNTH. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
How about Arguing for Ahistoricity by Richard Carrier ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with --Akhilleus that I don't think this is needed at all. Jeppiz (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_26&oldid=1241514958"