Talk:Christ myth theory/pseudohistory

Pseudohistory

Is this really appropriate? We have physical proof that the Moon landings are real but without documents from the actual time (not decades after) or other archeological evidence, it is not unreasonable to debate the historical assumption of the existence of the jesus of the bible. Other than christian theologians, who calls this pseudo history? 92.24.105.176 (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Read FAQ #3 above. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not saying it is mainstream - just don't think it belongs with Holocaust denial and Moon Landing Hoax - HUGE difference. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the points above are real interesting and very cleverly put together, putting OTT opinion and historical views together. However as far as I can see the only people going so far as to link this to holocaust/moon hoax myths are not impartial historians. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just read the article and look up the references. The people who compare it with Holocaust denial are clearly listed. And if you can't find a non-Christian among them, then you're not looking. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well sidestepped on actually answering my point. From the list above the only ones who actually mention Nazi's and the Moon /Holocaust Hoax are: Michael James McClymond (fairly obscure and obviously an evangelical christian), Michael R. Licona (a christian apologist - anyone who would write in a Lee Strobel book should not be taken too seriously), John Dominic Crosson (a former catholic priest), Mark Allen Powell (lutharian), William Lane Craig (christan), John Piper (pastor) and Dennis Ingolfsland (pastor). The Ehrman quote is unclear as to the point he is making. The books these quotes all come from are not scholarly tomes but from the titles look like apologist material. Not really cricket to use such stuff to define a topic. I notice they are all fairly new books too so could also incur the charge of recentism. In short I disagree with your assessment that pseudo history is supported by the quotes. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Christian bigotry on this page gets a bit tedious, but I’ll address your prejudicial comments nevertheless. Can the men cited in the footnotes of the article on this point be dismissed with the mere wave of a biased hand? Clearly, no.

• Michael McClymond, despite your dismissive view of his faith, is a serious scholar: PhD from the University of Chicago, teaching position at the University of St. Louis, and books published through Oxford University Press, John Hopkins University Press, Eerdmans, Greenwood, and others.

• Mark Allan Powell: yes, a Lutheran… just like those other light-weights, Jaroslav Pelikan and Martin Marty. PhD from Union Theological Seminary, endowed teaching position at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, books published through Fortress, Eerdmans, Abingdon, Harper-Collins, Westminster John Knox, SPCK, and on and on. Also, the current chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature’s Historical Jesus Division.

• William Lane Craig: again, yes, a Christian (shiver!). Twin doctorates, one from the University of Birmingham (England), the other from the University of Munich, teaching position at Talbot School of Theology (a regionally accredited PhD granting institution), seemingly limitless works published through Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, MIT Press, Georgetown University Press, Rutgers University Press, Peking University Press, Brill, and on and on and on and on. (Also, the author of what the Secular Web dubbed “The best defense of Jesus' resurrection available”.)

• Nicholas Perrin: PhD from Marquette University, teaching position at Wheaton College (a regionally accredited PhD granting institution), works published through Brill, Walter de Gruyter, Westminister John Knox, and others, world renowned expert of the Gospel of Thomas.

• Michael R. Licona: yes, an apologist, but no more so than the various advocates of the Christ myth theory. PhD from the University of Pretoria and a few published books. And yes, he appears in Lee Strobels books, but so do Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and Craig A. Evans—try to put your bias aside for a moment; are these the sort of men who “should not be taken too seriously” when it comes to historical Jesus research?

• And, finally, John Dominic Crossan: to be sure, a former Christian clergyman… just like Robert M. Price & Dan Barker. Doctorate from Maynooth College, 25 year teaching career at DePaul University, books published through Harper-Collins, Fortress, Westminster John Knox, T & T Clark, and others. (You may find it perversely reassuring to know that Crossan doesn’t believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead and seems to take an anti-realist view of God.)

Now, the article itself doesn’t quote either John Piper or Dennis Ingolfsland on this point (in fact, in it’s current incarnation, the article doesn’t quote Piper at all). But since you mentioned them I feel I should point out that while Piper is a pastor, he was also a professor of the New Testament at Bethel College, has a doctorate from the University of Munich, and has been published by the University of Cambridge Press; Ingolfsland isn’t as impressive, but he nevertheless isn’t a pastor but a professor at Crown College and has been published in a few journals including Bibliotheca Sacra and Trinity Journal.

Also, the identification of this theory as “pseudohistory” doesn’t hang entirely on the denialist comparisons; it also derives support from the slightly tamer insinuations of greed (Ehrman), insanity (Bultmann), stupidity (Maier), and so forth leveled at it, along with the very nearly unanimous scholarly consensus against it.

Just as an aside, there's no official Wikipedia policy regarding "recentism", so don't lose any sleep worrying over that point. And in any event, the sources used to cite the denialist comparisons were published in '98, '00, '04, '07, '08 and '09; that's a respectable spread. Eugene (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem of the IP is one that confused me too and I don't think the article addresses this very clearly and that is that the article is only discussing a "man" called Jesus rather than a "Christ". Few (perhaps none?) of the sources would ever claim that this historical person had any supernatural powers. Where the magic of Jesus is discussed then they will never be so rash as to claim that Jesus did perform supernatural acts but will comment on how what acts were done were observed by crowds which interpreted these acts as supernatural. The problem with the "deniers" is that they see the Jesus Christ as the whole package i.e. the son of god not just the temporal form that the historians study. It would certainly be a foolish historian to then, in the same reference, apply the same certainty that they apply to the existence of the man to Jesus being the Son of God given the paucity of evidence for God and the utter lack of creditable evidence for the supernatural. They are acutely aware they would then risk being lumped into the crank bin (pseudoscience). It's like someone saying that UFOs don't exist when a historian shows without a doubt that UFOs are grey and they have (and quite correctly so) good evidence to support the greyness. Eventually the majority of scholars agree amongst themselves that they are grey but few will ever question that what is grey doesn't actually fly. The UFO deniers are obviously crazy to deny the greyness when they also question how far off the ground it floats. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I was musing on that last night. The page used to be called "The Jesus Myth" (yes I'm a long time editor of this page who got bored and went away) and then it was clearly about a fringe theory about the lack of evidence for the historicity of the Jesus of the bible. The change to "Christ Myth" muddied the waters considerably and it was a change I opposed for all the reasons given in the post above. Back to the original point however. As there is a notable lack of evidence for key points in the new testament accounts of Jesus (take the nativity as a starting point), and absolutely no written documents until at least a couple of decades afterwards, only those with a huge investment in this all being "true" would go as far as to call these people holocaust deniers. That charge is so outrageous and obviously partisan that it cannot be allowed to stand on the poor apologist barbs that have been offered up. I think Elaine Pagels and Thomas Thompson would be surprised to be written off as wackos for toying with the idea. Cue a post from Bruce..... 92.24.105.176 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is named "Christ myth theory" because that is the name that the sources which discuss the theory generally give it. The very first sentence of the article clearly indicates that the topic under discussion is "the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person". As for Thompson, given how often he's lambasted by other scholars working in Old Testament research, I very much doubt he'd find himself "surprised" to be labeled a "wacko". But, in any event, if Thompson, the self-described "Joycean Catholic" who thinks questions of ancient historicity are generally unanswerable, ever gets around to actually denying the existence of the historical Jesus, then this article should probably mention it. Your reference to Pagels is shocking, however, considering that she's written, "what we do know as historical fact is that certain disciples--notably, Peter--claimed that the resurrection had happened. More important, we know the result: shortly after Jesus' death, Peter took charge of the group as its leader and spokesman." How you've jumped from Pagels' belief that Jesus' crucifixion and the claims of his resurrection in its immediate aftermath constitute a "historical fact" to the idea that she has "toyed" with the Christ myth theory is beyond me. Eugene (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sums up why I got bored. I read the Pagels quote in a very different way to you. Your post also betrays your investment in this topic that you would be "shocked" by anyone being tainted with the brush of mysticism. You maybe should read more of her stuff in a new light - by your reading John Frum must be real. Thompson is also right - many ancient historical events are unprovable, as without positive unequivocal evidence you can't establish anything beyond reasonable doubt. Along with being called a bigot by another editor for questioning the breadth of sources for establishing pseudo history as a category - an editorially valid point - not an anti christian attack, I can see nothing has changed. I still disagree that there is a broad consensus of academics (not apologists) who view this topic as akin to holocaust denial and nothing has been written here to show otherwise. Show me one non christian writer who specifically links the christ myth to the moon hoax. 92.24.105.176 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not shocked that some scholar somewhere might be a mythicist, I'm shocked that you would essentially lie about Pagels' views, asinine claims of "reading" her differently notwithstanding. But considering the dissembling so often seen in the mythicists who haunt this page, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised. As for John Frum, I suggest you check a source written by someone trained in at least a marginally relevant discipline and not (wild guess here!) an evolutionary biologist--Wikipedia's John Frum article cites a few helpful leads. Lastly, you want a non-Christian writer who links the Christ myth theory with moon landing skepticism? How about the one given in the footnotes of this very article: John Dominic Crossan. Sure, he was a Catholic priest... before he wasn't. But he's indicated that, currently, he doesn't really believe in God, that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, and that, as far as life after death goes, he neither knows nor cares. He should do. Eugene (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There doesn't have to be a "head count" among historians who use phrases like "Holocaust denial" and "Moon-landing hoax". The point is that the CMT represents the fringe and that some scholars use phrases like those two above to make that point. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the dispute tag to try to bring in more comment. I do like Bill the cat's view above as I could toddle off to the christianity page and add a "mental illness" tag based on that argument - I have quotes by scholars! I must be reading a different Pagels to everyone else. She certainly does not take the life of Jesus as a "verified 100% given" in the books I have - lie is not a very nice word to use about another editor - most unchristian. 89.242.159.206 (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the belief that Jesus never existed at all, not that certain controversial elements of his canonical biography (like his miraculous birth) might be unhistorical. The article makes this very plain in its very first sentence. Given this narrow focus, then, based on the quotation I provided from Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, Pagels' does regard Jesus' historical existence as a "verified 100% given". Sure, lie isn't a very nice word, but to quote A Man for All Seasons, "It's not a likeable word. It's not a likeable thing."

But I don't want to be intractable. As a concession to this article's less discerning readers, I'd be willing to consider changing "The Christ myth theory... is the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person" to "The Christ myth theory... is the contention that Jesus of Nazareth never existed". Also, to diffuse some of our anonymous malecontent's irritation with the pseudohistory tag, take a look at the pseudohistory category page; it contains a number of theories that are not as obviously kooky as holocaust denial and moon landing hoaxes, including the belief that the Chinese discovered the Americas before Columbus, that the French are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel, and that there was a cholera epidemic in Chicago in the late 19th century. As for the argument that one could throw a "mental illness" tag (no such general tag exist, by the way) on the Christianity page, last time I checked Christianity wasn't listed in the DSM-IV, so that'd be difficult. Eugene (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"what we do know as historical fact is that certain disciples--notably, Peter--claimed that the resurrection had happened. More important, we know the result: shortly after Jesus' death, Peter took charge of the group as its leader and spokesman". Why the "more important" caveat if she feels there is 100% proof that Jesus and his NT life are indisputable? Anyway this is slightly off point as the only non christian hoaxer you have offered up is an ex priest who would not be considered a prime source in any other article than one on the Jesus Seminar. A quick look round pseudo history does contain a bizarre mix but has no bearing on establishing it here. On the liar front - you said I lied and it is slippery in the extreme to then try to wriggle out of the charge of having called me a liar. In fact the Crossan is less clear than your accusation but I don't want to get distracted by personal attacks. Do you have a consensus of non apologists who specifically link this theory to the moon/holocaust hoax? Or is this an attempt by apologists to discredit by association? 89.243.73.230 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, the naysayer begins to loose traction. You said, "Show me one non Christian writer who specifically links the Christ myth to the moon hoax." So I did. But now that's not enough; now I need to demonstrate that there's a consensus of scholars linking the Christ myth theory to moon landing or holocaust denialism. Can you say "moving the goalpost"? Never mind that though, the article never claims that a consensus of scholars links the Christ myth theory to holocaust denial and so forth, it only says that some of the scholars in the consensus which repudiates the theory go this far. As for Crossan not being a "prime source", I'm not sure what you mean by "prime source"; the phrase doesn't occur in any official Wikipedia policies or guidelines. In any event, Crossan certainly does qualify as a reliable source, which is all that matters here, and his name pops up in literally dozens of Wikipedia articles.

Your interpretation of Pagels is likewise tendentious and irrelevant. Pagels says that Peter's leadership of the early Church is more "important" than his claims concerning the resurrection, not that such a development is more "certain" than Jesus' crucifixion. Also, this article never claims that Jesus' "NT life" specifically is "indisputable". Once more, this article is about the view that Jesus never existed at all, not that his canonical biography may be almost entirely legendary in nature. Please actually read the footnotes in the lead--even the very first one will suffice. Now, please, go away and stop wasting everyone's time with your dishonest misrepresentations of scholars, your self-serving goal-post-moving, and your unwillingness to actually read what you criticize. Eugene (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Crossan is obviously apt to change his mind, and unless we plot his moon hoax quote against his prevailing belief, I think it is you who are actually trying to kick the goal post down. And if he is the best you can produce as a "non christian" source I think you have actually proved the point I was trying to make. If wikipedia has become a rag bag of any biased quote that some editor can source then it is the poorer for it. You won't even allow the POV tag to try to bring in other comment.

(Which of Crossan's "prevailing beliefs" are you refering to, his objective atheism? Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

So my current assessment of the situation is that my original objection of apologist/highly biased data used to support pseudo history has not been addressed. But there are two of you and I can't even highlight the POV dispute to potential readers on the page to try to draw in other comment. Having watched this one play out many times in other places I know it will only take one more revert of the TAG to get me blocked after an appeal to some naive admin. Nicely played guys.

(It seems that you're trying very hard to not hear this point, but I'll make it again in the event that I have to resort to some sort of dispute resolution in the future. The pseudohistory category contains a wide variety pseudohistorical views ranging from holocaust denial to pre-columbian Chinese explorations of North America; the Christ myth theory is very much at home there. Also, the theory's status as pseudohistory is established by the overwhelming consensus against the theory, scholars' insinuations of perversity, greed, insanity, and stupidity related to the theory, and, then, the comparisons to flat-earthism, holocaust denial, and moon landing skepticism. So even if you think that the SBL is nothing but a front for crypto-apologists and McClymond's book isn't a "scholarly tome"--despite the fact that it appears on syllibi from Queen's University and Boston College--the pseudohistory cat tag still stands. Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

I see I have touched a sore point as the previous peer review editor (who I respect as being very thorough) obviously had the same concerns as me.

(This article has never had a Peer Review before now. Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

This tag appeared on the 9th Jan, put there by Eugeneacurry. At least 5 editors have contested its inclusion. One of whom was blocked under doubtful process wonkery. Huston we have a problem - wait a minute that was never actually said! 92.24.16.27 (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(What five editors, specifically, have contested this cat tag since January 9th?. Also, I know this is nit-picking, but "Houston, we've had a problem", was actually said. So with the John Frum allusion you're 0 for 2 now with the attempted ahistorical paralells. Eugene (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

I know what was actually said by Jim Lovell (it wasn't his quote anyway he was paraphrasing something Jack Swigert said to him) hence the attempt at humour. As for the other editors who have challenged this, you were involved with the arguments so should review the archives. 92.24.16.27 (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also on the John Frum point, a few decades after his "appearance" thousands of people believe he is real and will return. Not sure how I got that one wrong. 92.24.16.27 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors I have found in the history files (and review pages) who have challenged pseudohistory are; Haldraper, Steve is the man, james, jbolden, slimvirgin, tournesol, schizombie, Ttiotsw and me! Please don't make me add links as that is so time consuming and I think it is best to read the last 4 archives to see how this topic keeps coming back. That would not happen if it was really resolved. If I have misrepresented anyone please put me right, this is not an attempt to score points but to gauge the mood of the editors here. Sophia♫ 12:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any of these editors objecting to the pseudohistory cat tag specifically. I think you may need diffs since, when I searched the archives for "pseudohistory", I found nothing recent except this very discussion. Eugene (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for Pseudo-history / pseudo-scholarship

I was asked to reconsider my opinion about RFC. I explicitly asked, though, for top-quality sources that use these terms. And I'd appreciate top quality, not merely good source, top academic publishers. The sources I have seen are the following. I'll sign all my comments individually, so other editors can add comments right under each source if they want. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position." (Gerard Stephen Sloyan,The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9)
  • This is published by Fortress Press, the official publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fortress Press is the academic imprint of the publishing house. Eugene (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth." (Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164)
  • Lutterworth Press, a Christian media company. Again, a good and respectable publisher, but not exactly a top academic publisher. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Emil Brunner, world-renowned professor at the University of Zurich Eugene (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• "While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio." (Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, pp. 8 & 23–24)
  • Eerdmans, another respectable but clearly religious publishing house. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The book appears on syllabi at major universities including Boston College, Queen's University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the University of Aberdeen.

• "A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese." (N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 48)
  • Finally, a top academic publisher. Note though that pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship is not explicitly mentioned, and the discussion seems very informal. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• "The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. (Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007, p. 32)
  • Thomas Nelson, world's largest Christian publisher. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Nicholas Perrin - a scholar with relevant credentials; published academic monographs; scholarly journal articles on the state of historical Jesus studies, etc. Ari (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• "If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?" (Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008)
  • This is not even in print, but clearly a non-Christian here. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." (Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 168)
  • Westminster John Knox, publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); but this source highlight the problem with outdated versus pseudo-scholarship, calling Bauer well-respected. Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Mark Allan Powell - Well respected academic, chair of SBL Historical Jesus studies. --Ari (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Recommended as "key" by an Oxford Professor and appears on syllabi at universities including the University of Denver and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
• "One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism." (James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010).
  • Is this a blog? Vesal (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Blog of James F. McGrath, Associate Professor of Religion and Clarence L. Goodwin Chair of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University. --Ari (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion perfectly illustrates the sort of bizarre double-standard some are trying to apply to this article. Vesal concedes that the categorization as pseduo-X is supported by books printed by "good and respectable" publishers (some of which books are used as actual text books in major universities) and even by non-Christian scholars, but still, that's not good enough. (Nevermind that WP:FRINGE allows for scholarly criticism of fringe theories to be drawn even from "alternative venues".) The sources, apparently, must be published by university presses... and even that doesn't really count if the tone is "informal". Come on; is there another article, in all of Wikipedia, where the bar is set this high, let alone another article on a WP:FRINGE theory? Eugene (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I was strictly talking about sources for putting articles into the pseudo-X categories. I absolutely hope that no article on Wikipedia is placed in a pseudo-X category without having a book from a high-quality university press or article in a top journal where that exact term is used. And this is not unfair: these very same scholars have published all over the place; and yet, comparisons to holocaust denial is confined to Christian publishers. Vesal (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why it matters that a publisher, or any quoted scholar for that matter, is a Christian? It seems you are implying a bias, that Christian sources are somehow less trustworthy. Is that what you are saying? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

When we're writing about an ideology that involves very strong feelings, it's not good when the article is controlled by people who are strict adherents to it, for obvious reasons. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a really ridiculous thing to say to be honest. Academic sources are no longer RS because you suspect they, but not someone writing mock history in The Case Against Christianity is only making a bias claim? --Ari (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is bias. Not even saying that is bad, from their perspective. But the very idea that Christ may not have existed would not be something that Christian publishing houses or Scholars would accept or take even remotely seriously. Looking over that list, I do have to ask why it is so heavily leaning towards Christian publishing houses. Are there not more "neutral" sources that can be used instead? Otherwise, these sources are heavily titled to one POV, understandably so, mind you, as they are Christian. How can they not see the very idea that Christ was not an historical person as anything, from their POV, that is, but "pseudo". Now, if more neutral sources could be found in the same abundance saying that the very idea is fringe or pseudo, then the article would not feel so POV. Gingervlad (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you (and SV) for being frank about it. I've asked that question before, but because this page has become so large and cluttered, I never got a response (from what I can remember). At any rate, that is a problematic position. I mean, an analogy to what you are saying is that Jews have a bias towards Holocaust history, so peer-reviewed Jewish scholars can not be trusted to write an unbiased history of the Holocaust unless they are also supported by non-Jewish scholars. The same can be said about peer reviewed scholars writing about the Arab-Israeli Wars, or current relations between Israel and the Palestinians, or current relations between China and Tibet, or the history of Britain and Ireland, or a whole bunch of other topics.

Be that as it may, such a position will have to be backed up by reliable sources, but don't bother doing it now. Since it is a concern for you and SV (and I think others), I just added the sentence Are "Christian" scholars, and publishers of their books, reliable? to the "Issue to be addressed" subsection above. If you can think of any other issue that should be addressed, please feel free to add to it. You don't have to state your reasons or your position. I just want to get a list of everyone's concerns so that we can all address them in an orderly manner. If you can't think of any right now, no problem. Just add to the list when something comes up. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept your analogy that Jewish historians can't be trusted with the Holocaust. Being a committed Christian is based on faith, not reason. Christians are the first to admit that; indeed, they make a virtue out of it.

Studying the Holocaust or any other period of history for which a lot of material is available is mostly a matter of reason and evidence. Ideology does enter into it, and all history is biased to some degree, of course. But the further back you go, and the more essential that history is to someone's faith (an issue not based on reason at all), the more problematic the issue becomes.

We should therefore focus on the highest-quality mainstream sources we can find for this article. I am less concerned about whether they are Christian or not. My main concern is that we should focus (wherever possible) on academic historians, who have been trained to some degree to put their prejudices to one side, or at least recognize them. By that I mean people with PhDs in history or ancient history working as historians in universities. Other voices can be included, of course, if they're part of the debate, particularly if they're disinterested: personally I place a high value on philosophers because I'm familiar with their approach. But I have a concern about the number of biblical scholars being used here who trained in minor seminaries, and who are emotionally invested. That's why the article has a POV air to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, it really doesn't matter at this point whether you accept the analogy or not. I am fully aware of your concerns (and those of others), and they have been noted, which is why I added the question to the "Issues to be addressed" section. We can discuss them further, in an orderly fashion, at a later time. In the mean time, if you have any other concerns, please list them in the "Issues to be addressed" section. And, once again, I request that ALL editors refrain (which I will also abide by) from making any even remotely potentially contentious edits to the article or to the FAQs. We all agree, I think, that the article has a long way to go before it can even be considered for FA status, so let's proceed in an orderly and civil manner. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I apologize for the emphasis on their religious conviction. The problem is certainly not that Christian sources are less trustworthy. The problem is when you extrapolate from the consensus within New Testament studies to claim this is the consensus view in academia. Right now, I have only seen Biblical scholars go so far as to call this pseudo-history, while secular historians are satisfied to call this refuted and unconvincing. You may do a search on "Historical Jesus pseudo-scholarship" and you will find Biblical scholars, such as L. Gregory Bloomquist, calling "the study of the historical Jesus confined to the ideological and theological pseudo-history of positivism." Shall we put historical Jesus into pseudo-history as well? I actually think the term is used without much thought. While Denying History dedicates an entire chapter to explaining why holocaust-denial is pseudo-history, these scholars are just using it as a derogatory term without ever defining what it means and why it applies. Vesal (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, please don't dismiss my post. I'm concerned that you and Eugene keep referring to the Holocaust. Jewish historians who write about the Holocaust may or may not be observant Jews. Or they may be atheists. Or somewhere in between. And the Holocaust is not a religious issue—Hitler did not target religious Jews. So the analogy breaks down at several points, and I'm disturbed to see that it keeps being raised by two editors. I'd appreciate if it you could find a closer analogy if you want to use one. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs}

SV, I assure you that I'm not dismissing any of your posts. I value your input, and all of your comments rightfully need to be addressed. The only reason I will not discuss your concerns right now is that I want to compile a list of issues that need to be addressed so that they can be dealt with in an orderly fashion by all of us. Please, list any other concerns you have in the "Issues to be addressed" section. I'm going to ask an administrator in the next few days to lock the article to prevent further contentious edits and I would appreciate your support on this. Edits will still be possible, via the admin, but I wish to prevent disagreements from spiraling out of control. And, personally, I don't care how the article reads until the issues are resolved. That is, if anyone wants to add a POV edit, do it now. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles are never protected preventatively, so you'll be unlikely to find an admin willing to do that. You seem to find edits contentious only when Eugene doesn't like them, Bill, which is a definition admins are not likely to take seriously. :) Could you reply to my earlier question, please, about the Wells section I expanded? You were offline, but then suddenly came online only to make that revert, then went offline again. Presumably no one asked you to do that, so you must have had your own concerns. Eugene posted a concern that could easily have been dealt with without a full revert, so I'd like to hear your own reasons for the revert, and why you couldn't explain them on talk at the time. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the article should be preventivly (sp?) protected, per se. What I'm trying to do is to protect the article, temporarily, from contentious edits until we all have a chance to discuss them. Don't you think that that is a good idea, or do you just want to multiply and obfuscate the various issues? I think that you want the resolve these issues in a civil and orderly manner, so I request your support on this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You won't find an admin to do that, because they're not allowed to. And you're using a definition of "contentious" that few would agree with. Could you please reply to my question about the Wells section? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please list your concerns in the "Issues to be addressed" subsection above. I'm not going to argue about it here because it is not relevant right now. Let's try to tackle these issues in an orderly manner. Please help me construct a means by which all of our concerns can be addressed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, there is no need to apologize (although in doing so, you show a sincere desire to discuss the issue further in a civil manner). At this point, I'm only concerned with compiling a list of issues/concerns that all of us need to resolve. Compiling a list shouldn't take more than one or two weeks - depending on how many of us actually have normal jobs. :) Their their resolutions will probably take quite a bit longer, but that is just part of the fun of editing Wikipedia.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, your objection amounts to this:

• Christian scholars cannot be trusted as mainstream as they cannot "put their prejudices to one side" and are often "emotionally invested".
• We should use only people with PhDs in ancient history because unlike Biblical scholars working in ancient history they can put their prejudices aside and aren't emotionally invested. Note, the opinion of four ancient historians are listed Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Scholarly_views_on_CMT. And then you top this off with;
• Non experts such as philosophers are objective disinterested parties, presumably above relevant scholarship.

Umm... --Ari (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari, you make good points, but let's wait until we have a list of "Issues to be addressed" before we argue the points. Keep your thoughts in mind. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be categorized as "pseudohistory"?

There is currently a dispute as to whether Christ myth theory—an article about the theory that Jesus may not have existed as a historical figure—ought to be included in the "pseudohistory" category. Input would be appreciated. 01:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose inclusion. Categories are incapable of nuance or referencing. This theory has been expounded by some well-known academics, including the historian Bruno Bauer, the philosopher Arthur Drews, and more recently the German professor G. A. Wells. If it's being taken seriously by university academics, even if they're in a minority, it shouldn't be categorized bluntly as pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship, no matter how much some biblical scholars may dislike it.

  Wikipedia:Categorization says "Categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It's certainly true that the Christ myth theory (the theory that Jesus never existed at all) has been expounded by some well-known academics. There was, as SlimVirgin notes, the notoriously anti-Semitic Bruno Bauer who found "the idea that the religion that had shaped western civilization could have been founded by a Jew... impossible... to accept" [1] There was also, as SlimVirgin also notes, Arthur Drews, a non-specialist and Nazi-sympathizer who "in his capacity as a religious anti-Semite, struggle[d] against this materialistic Semitic graft for the religious life of Aryanism".[2] And, lest we forget, there's also G. A. Wells, just as SlimVirgin notes: another non-specialist who pushed the theory "not for objective scholarly reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes"[3]--who, by the way, has now abandoned the theory.[4] Please, before weighing-in, take a look at the FAQ on this issue; it appears as question #2. This is a slam dunk. Eugene (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Advocate Support (per Backtable). The Chrst myth theory is a theory that goes against popular belief, this popular belief being that Jesus is real. Pseudohistory is defined as a theory or set of theories that go against what is widely accepted as a factual aspect of history. Thus, I wouldn't mind this being categorized as such. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. Are you implying that “popular belief” and “factual aspect of history” are the same thing? Using this category implies that the dead reckoning behind one popular belief is somehow more sound than that of the dissenting view. I will not tell you what to believe or disbelieve, only what to avoid presenting as fact. ―AoV² 04:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  I guess they are meant to be the same thing. I wasn't thinking about the correlation of those phrases when I was writing that. By the way, note that I said "what is widely perceived as a factual aspect of history", instead of stating "factual aspect of history" by itself. Thus, that meant that it didn't necessarily reflect my thoughts. I believe Jesus is real, but that was not a factor in my argument. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. If mainstream scholarship considers it false and the methods by which it is commonly investigated to be inherently unscientific/historical, it is pseudohistory. It is not just an expression of bias, it is the real scholarly opinion. NJMauthor (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. To call this pseudo-history is to take for granted that Jesus existed. If enough evidence existed to prove or disprove that assertion, we wouldn′t be having this conversation. The best answer I′ve found is “maybe”. ―AoV² 05:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi. Did you read FAQ #2? Eugene (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hi AoV2, I believe to call it pseudo-history has a lot more to do with disregard for historical method by proponents. In the eyes of essentially all historians, there is clearly enough information about Jesus not just to tell us that he existed, but what he taught, the shape of his ministry and much more. --Ari (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trusting sources penned a generation or two after his estimated death does play the dickens with historical method, I′ll grant you that. ―AoV² 05:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the place for debate, although Paul writing about meeting Jesus' brother James and apostles in Jerusalem is a lot different to the situation you would like to imply. On the point of source criticism, this links the traditions far closer than penning of the gospels, etc. Anyway, my point stands. They criticise disregard for historical method, not whatever your POV website seems to think. --Ari (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. As our reliable sources have made clear, mainstream scholarship considers the theory pseudohistory. This is backed up by number reputable scholars from all fields of the ideological, many of whom have gone to the extent of comparing it to other frigne pseudo-historical theories. Factors that seem to generally be noted by the mainstream towards this theory is that it is pseudo-historical for disregarding historical method. --Ari (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agreed to the compromised to get the far worse pseudohistory removed. Having reread WP:CAT I can see that my understanding of how cats are used is out of date and this should not be used here as it is controversial and too wide sweeping. Some authors would fall under that cat but there are many others who would not. Sophia ♫ 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. The life and historicity of Jesus Christ are part of academical studies and debates. Michele Bini (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is on the Christ Myth theory, not academic debate on the life of Jesus - see historical Jesus. Your claim that the historicity of Jesus is debated in academic circles is not the case. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose For something to be included in the pseudohistory category, there should be consensus among specialists of the field that it is a false theory, which I don't think exists. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus, and there are no peer-reviewed academic works arguing the case that I am aware of. As Professor Robert E. Van Voorst notes, "The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." (Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.14.) I would ask the people voting here to please make themselves aware of the debate, especially before making statements on consensus. --Ari (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll further investigate this and come back to it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per this[5] and Sophia. --JokerXtreme (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Per reasons stated by Eugene and others. Personally, I don't believe that we are even taking this vote. As Eugene stated, it is a slam dunk. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, taking a vote seems to be a way to circumvent what scholars have to say in favour of editors personal opinions. --Ari (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely... this is insanity! Did nobody read the FAQ? NJMauthor (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it IS insanity. Apparently, there are some that think a consensus can change facts. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Get enough editors in here unfamiliar with the topic and I suppose a "consensus" out of ignorance is a useful political tool. NJMauthor (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ^^James^^ (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

James, your Oppose vote is meaningless without giving a reason. NJMauthor (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many people looking at this subject seriously without crying holocaust (while not necessarily agreeing). One example is Clinton Bennett in In Search of Jesus. Second, most of the people crying holocaust are dyed-in-the-wool Christians. That does not necessarily make them wrong, but I hesitate to add the tag based on their characterizations. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless someone can make a serious, successful challenge to the sources used to support the claim in the article and in FAQ 2 that this view is considered untenable by the vast majority of historians. The article on psuedo-history doesn't seem to actually define psuedo-history, but I'm going with the assumption that it's the equivalent of psuedo-science, which I understand, and that assumption doesn't seem to be debated by anyone here.Yoshi348 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I spent quite some time searching through peer reviewed journals and couldn't find anything supporting the position that Jesus was a myth but found articles refuting the idea. I trawled through several websites that supported the idea but they did not cite any peer reviewed work. I'm a bit surprised by this and hope that anybody casting a vote that opposes the inclusion will be able to demonstrate that there are historians out there that genuinely consider this a valid proposition. aineolach (u · d · c) 21:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fringe indeed, but where are the quality sources classifying this as pseudo-history. (That has a connotation of ideologically driven fabrication and a Nazi sting to it.) Sources saying this is refuted are indeed CUP/OUP level, but the pseudo-history rhetoric and comparisons to holocaust denial are at best Westminster Fort Knox. Vesal (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I don't have a lot to add, but I would point out that at this point serious scholars are starting to question the claims of the Historical Jesus school as extreme, and, as their name suggests, the Historical Jesus scholars never claimed they're wasn't a historical Jesus. Adam sk (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Assume this means this theory is pseudohistory. I seem to recall an unpleasant reference from Jewish writing that supports the fact of Jesus' existence (just not a lot of other things!). Student7 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, a "support" means that the theory IS pseudohistory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  See also Truth in Numbers. ―AoV² 13:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yes, before anyone asks, I have read FAQ 2. No, I can't come up with a comparative list of quotes, although I think that is largely because when I searched JSTOR for Christ myth it came up with over 1,000 results and I honestly don't have the time to go through them all. Having said that, there seems to be a lot of academic discussion regarding this topic, and I was able to find works by Richard Carrier and Alan Dundes supporting this theory. This is admittedly just a start, but I would refer to this as well. I don't think the theory is very robust but labelling it pseudo-history doesn't appear to be warranted. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure that this issue is going to mediation some time in the near future. If you can't provide a comparative list, then 1) You really shouldn't be voting; and 2) Those who oppose the categorization will be forced to provide a comparative list or lose the mediation. It's really that simple. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I just searched "Christ myth" in JSTOR and it came up with "Results 1–25 of 156 for << ("Christ myth") >>". Most of the articles seem to be reviews of Arthur Drews or notes on having received the publication from journals written around 1910-15 and totally irrelevant works such as "The Russian scientist today", Russian Review or "The Primitivistic Aesthetic: D. H. Lawrence", The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. I did not come across any article arguing the hypothesis in any my scroll through the 156 results. --Ari (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you search for "Christ Myth" it comes up with 154 for me, whereas if you search for Christ myth it comes up with 24,152 results. I found that searching for Christ myth actually came up with a lot more results which covered the topic of the historicity of Jesus (although that was by no means the central focus of the articles, it was still a topic of debate).

Bill, surely if this is a minority viewpoint, we're not going to be able to come up with a list as extensive as that in FAQ 2? Otherwise it would be the majority viewpoint, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how the results for searching the database for all entries mentioning "Christ" and "myth" necessitates your statement that "there seems to be a lot of academic discussion regarding this topic". I personally couldn't find any contemporary debate in the academic peer-review on the theory, and I do regularly follow historical Jesus works and journals. Similarly, scholars and advocates themselves are telling us this isn't the case. I would suggest some more investigation into the actual results of your search and what picture of the debate it paints. --Ari (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The fundamental question seems to me to be whether articles in the category 'pseudohistory' should themselves actually be pseudo in nature or if the category should also include articles that are claimed by other historians as being bogus. The latter currently doesn't seem to be the practice amongst pseudo categories. If a small minority of accredited historians are claiming it and debating it with colleagues I don't see how it could be rubber stamped as being pseudo by impartial wikipedians.Chhe (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "small minority of accredited historians" that are claiming/debating it. The amount of scholars in the relevant field who don't consider it fringe are virtually non-existent. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose "'Pseudohistory'" stinks of poor quality history. I see no sign of that. What I do see is ad hominem "arguments" and the assertion that, because most scholars think it likely that a Jesus of Nazareth existed, (as do I), it is therefore pseudohistory to argue the case against. This is deeply prejudiced POV pushing .Anthony (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. "Pseudohistory" is a term as strong as "Pseudoscience." It utterly trivializes the subject, and rightly so if deserved. In this case, however, the existence of Jesus is a question that deserves serious attention and continuing debate. Paul provides absolutely nothing of substance about Jesus as an actual person. Everything else written about Jesus derives, originally, from sources within a cult of true believers; every historical reference to him comes from a source describing the early Christians' assertions, and only their assertions, which is not evidence of the histortical existence of Jesus (because the sources are overwhelmingly biased; one might as well write L. Ron Hubbard's biography exclusively via Scientological literature). The only strong evidence is Josephus's reference to James -- but once you strip out all the obvious propaganda added by later (Christian) writers, what's left is an ambiguous reference to a "brother," which could mean anything. Although I've concluded after many years of research that Jesus did, in fact, exist, I still consider it an open question. The enormous amount of history-creation and history-destruction by the early Church throws everything into question. Remember, the Church tried to destroy every source that disagreed with them; if not for, e.g., the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, plus the references in anti-heretical works that were "allowed" to survive, we would know next to nothing other than what the Church, centuries ago, allowed us to know. (In other words, 70 years ago we would be debating without benefit of the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls -- think of that.) I can't believe this question is even being debated; it is NOT "pseudohistory" to confront this question. Only the religiously biased, the true faithful, could even suggest that such an inquiry is "pseudohistory" as opposed to "legitimate (if incorrect) historical inquiry." 63.17.94.91 (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The so-called "Quest for the Historical Jesus" has been ongoing since the 18th century. In all of that time, with contributions by thousands of scholars and millions of pages published subject to peer-review, the consensus by all sorts of ancient historians stands: whatever else may be said about Jesus, he was at least a historical figure. The few desperate attempts to prove otherwise by almost exclusively non-experts to the contrary, the idea that Jesus is pure myth is pseudo-history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Messing (talk • contribs) 02:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The Christ myth theory this article talks about is not the same as other uses of the term. Some use the term to that the Jesus of the Bible never existed--something that is mainstream (Wells current there has been called "Christ myth theory" even though he acepts there may have been a historical person involved.)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus of the Bible" as distinguished from other Jesuses, like Jesus ben Ananais. Eugene (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually more along the Jesus of the Bible being a born of a virgin miracle working as if he was a one man assembly line come back from the dead after an earthquack and darkness with every non Christian contemporary (like Philo) taking a snooze and missing everything.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I reject the notion that "popular belief" is a criteria. The question is really whether this theory goes strongly against mainstream scholarship. It does not. Church scholars aside, the existence of the person is still a matter of debate and it cannot be said that the main scholars agree that all of those advocating this theory are essentially crackpots (though there are crackpots who advocate it as well). --Mcorazao (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The article itself include amble references to show it t be categorized as a WP:Fringe theories. See Christ myth theory#notes #8-23.

“ I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. ”

The fact that SlimVirgin can only name one historian, and that historian who died more than 130 years ago, seem a very clear sign that this history article should (also) be in the Category:Pseudohistory, a subcategory of Category:Fringe theory. Since we don't do both-- to be clear-- we need only place in Category:Fringe theory if it is (somehow) voted out of Category:Pseudohistory. Please show us any living historian, working as a historian who supports this idea (any "historian" earning money from any professional source, other than authoring books on this one fringe therory subject). ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 18:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose categorization. There is a lot of reason to believe Christ did exist, but I have yet to hear of anyone providing direct evidence corroborating this. As such I do not think it can be classified as pseudohistory and doing so would cause considerable damage to the neutrality of this article. You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot prove the positive then it is perfectly reasonable to question it. While this is a fringe theory it can not be fairly considered a false or erroneous one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact that a theory (historical hypothesis) is found probable by few scholars does not make the theory pseudohistory. Since nobody has provided a scholarly demonstration that e.g. the works by Wells, Doherty, Price are based on fatal methodological and/or factual blunders, there is no basis for labelling the theory (as such) pseudohistory. (Additional remark: Derogatory comments by themselves do not make the theory pseudohistory either. These remarks can, e.g., mean that we are encountering an example of a situation described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism [... Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind...]. WP editors have no authority to judge this situation, and thus have no basis for using the pseudohistory label.)Jelamkorj (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If "WP editors have no authority to judge this situation", then why are you, as a WP editor, judging it? Certainly, given your hesitation to judge, we should defer to reliable sources... such as the following:

• "Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus."

Michael James McClymond (professor at Saint Louis University), Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 23

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan (professor at Temple University), The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9

• And, finally, "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."

Emil Brunner (late professor at the University of Zurich), The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164 Eugene (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You can call any theory you don't like pseudo-history. It does not make it so.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly true. But if reliable sources say that it is indeed pseudo-history, then shouldn't that be seriously considered for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? I mean, virtually no scholar who has has evaluated the CMT has concluded that it is even being plausible, let alone likely. Shouldn't the casual reader be made aware of this fact? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the same as neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So, we should misrepresent, ignore, and/or hide the facts (i.e., facts which are verifiable) and thus misinform/ill-inform the readers, in the name of neutrality? Verifiability and neutrality go hand and hand and the one does not logically trump the other. In fact, ignoring the consensus of relevant reliable sources is hardly what I would call neutral. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

McClymond, Sloyan and Brunner may hurl insults at their opponents. Do you actually think this "proves" the theory to be pseudoscholarship? You have three quotes in FAQ 2, at the top of the page, that allow there are some serious scholars who hold this view. Ergo, it is not pseudoscholarship. Anthony (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a wiki link to pseudoscholarship (pseudohistory would be good too)? We may be defining the terms differently. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Let's take this to the bottom of the page. This is the RFC. Anthony (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that other people have understood better what I meant by not judging. WP editors surely should judge what the sources entitle them to say. I have expressed my opinion (so I judge if you wish) that we are not entitled to categorize this subject into pseudohistory (nor pseudoscholarship or so). In my opinion, the quotes you are giving do not provide a sufficient basis (not to say a basis backed by scholarly works) for a conclusion that each and every author (in particular Wells, Doherty, Price) who arrives at the plausibility of the JoN nonexistence hypothesis has been using a methodology which can be labelled as pseudoscholarship. (Remark. I am aware that I differ widely with the editors like Eugene on what constitutes a scholarly work; e.g., I find the quote which I mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_32#Crossan.27s_comment as clearly inappropriate to be introduced in the article; I find it also unfair to Crossan himself that somebody [Eugene, in this case] uses his comment as a scholarly response to the work of Doherty.)Jelamkorj (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Slim, who has done useful work in tracing the scholarly debate. Not a clear-cut enough case to be a good example of pseudohistory. Especially not when there are much more obvious examples like the 1412 theory. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the CMT is not itself either history or pseudo-history - rather, it claims that Christianity is based on pseudo-history. What label do you give to a theory that claims something else is pseudo-history, but is then in turn rejected by scholars? Wdford (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Er...I don't think pseudohistory is categorised by how Christ myth theorists see themselves, but how mainstream scholarship sees them and their disregard for historical method. That no ancient historian argues CMT while many argue the opposite may be a big hint about what results historical method yield. --Ari (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Er...I don't think CMT theorists are disregarding historical method - rather, they are coming up with different answers, based on a valid (if unpopular) interpretation of the evidence (such as exists). The fact that a majority of historians (currently) disagree with those answers is not in question, but that doesn't make CMT wrong, merely unfashionable. When one day the historicity or otherwise is proven, then one camp will be seen to have been right and the other will be seen to have been wrong, but meanwhile its merely about "opinions". I don't think "history" and "opinions" is the same thing, hence my "opinion" is that the CMT is not pseudo-history - just (currently) unfashionable. Wdford (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant as to whether or not you think they disregard historical method. Professional historians have criticised Christ myth theorists as disregarding historical method and that is why these verifiable sources brand it pseudohistory and pseudoscholarship. So in short: the misuse, ignorance of or complete disregard of historical method by CMT advocates is the criticism. Not what Wdford thinks is un/fashionable. --Ari (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this belongs in the psuedo history category. The title of the article states it as a theory rather than a fact. I suggest that attempting to put it in the category is POV. It is not an alternative history it simply points to that the only proof offered of Jesus's existence is in the Christian bible. There is no mention of him Roman records. Hypothesis and pseudo history are distinct. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, there are a few things wrong with your reply here. First, Just because a theory is not a fact does not mean that it is not making a claim. Theories are supposed to be supported by a body of evidence and can be wrong or right, just like facts can be. You know this, come on, buddy!

Second, you interject your POV about the validity of the theory. This is irrelevant, because we are only working with established sources here, and not editor opinion. Third, You then say that the Christ Myth Theory is a hypothesis, and thus cannot be pseudohistory; however, you refer to the CMT as a theory in your second sentence. "Hypothesis" is not the same as "Theory." Unless you want to bring an informed view to the table, please refrain from opposing or supporting a topic. NJMauthor (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per Mcorazao and SlimVirgin. In addition, despite the fact that some of the historians mentioned were antisemitic fiends, it doesn't change the underlying fact that its garnered scholarly interest from academics. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

False. NJMauthor (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In your eyes maybe, but everyone has their own eyes. Cheers! --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎}

What you said is an unsubstantiated falsehood. NJMauthor (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It has garnered scholarly interest only in so far that scholars have utterly rejected it as "crazy talk". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Eugene and the documentation in FAQ 2 that it is a fringe theory, rejected by the mainstream of scholars and reference works in the field. Edison (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I don't care about what categories appear in this article. As far as I can tell the category system exists to cause disputes among Wikipedia editors rather than to help Wikipedia readers. However, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, and as such is pseudohistory/scholarship. G.A. Wells is a bona fide academic, sure, but the fact that he is a scholar of German rather than of early Christianity is relevant. Scholars in fields that deal with early Christianity (religious studies, ancient history, and so on) think this theory is a fringe theory; many of the theory's current advocates acknowledge that it's rejected by mainstream academia. Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews were also bona fide academics (well, Bauer was until he lost his university post because of his views on Jesus)--but Bauer was 19th century and Drews early 20th century. The categorization is about how the theory is perceived now, not in 1852 or 1922. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is also Robert M. Price, a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, with two doctorates in theology. He's doesn't work in a maintream university, but he's nevertheless regarded as a specialist in this area by those who do. That he's a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and was invited to contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views (2009), along with Luke Timothy Johnson, John Dominic Crossan, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock, are both strong indications of that, in my view. I see that both of these points about Price have been removed from the article by Eugeneacurry. [6] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree strongly with your point about categories and disputes. The main purpose of them often seems to be as a weapon against people and ideas that someone doesn't like. It's time we tried to sort it out as a project.SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that Robert M. Price doesn't work at a mainstream university. The Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary is an unaccredited institution; it's apparently not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and it seems to pop up on Google exclusively for its association with Price. [7] This is in fact a great indication that we're dealing with a fringe theory: its advocates come from outside the relevant academic fields (Wells) or teach at unaccredited unknown institutions. Sure, Price is a notable figure and his views should be covered in this article, but he should not be taken as an indication that the theory has become mainstream within religious studies. It's nice that he was invited to contribute to The Historical Jesus: Five Views, but this is easily seen as a cynical attempt to boost sales by including a "controversial" view in the book; if you read the text, the other contributors are usually polite to Price, but it's clear that some of them are thinking, "Why do I have to respond to this guy?" Again, he is a notable figure, it's worth including him in the article, his membership in the Jesus seminar and his appearance in the book should be noted in the article. But none of this is an indication that Price's views are mainstream, or even representative of a significant minority opinion within religious studies. He's an oddball.

I would like to see the community tackle the issue of categories, but I'm not optimistic that it's possible. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm minded to try it, but it's not an area I've ever involved myself in, so I'd need to read up on previous attempts. We've had similar problems with editors adding the "pseudoscience" category to anything they don't understand or like. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you said: "If it's being taken seriously by university academics, even if they're in a minority, it shouldn't be categorized bluntly as pseudo-history or pseudo-scholarship". Does that then mean that you oppose the pseudohistory cat on the holocaust denial page because holocaust denial is "taken seriously" (i.e. advocated) by a "minority" of "university academics" like Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson? (I'm not surprised to see SlimVirgin hasn't responded to this.)Eugene (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The problems you discuss here are tied to the idiosyncratic definition of article scope. The owner of this article, Eugeneacurry, insists on treating a loosely connected series of opinions on the "nonhistoricity of Christ" as a single topic, but separate from the debate on the historicity of Christ in general. This is WP:SYNTH to begin with, and you end up with an article that is cobbled together from partly pseudo-scholarhsip, partly fringe scholarship and partly bona fide but outdated scholarship. This problem will not go away, nor will this article ever be stable, before the owner condescends to look into its relation to the articles with overlapping scope and try to sort the issues between these articles as a group instead of obsessing over getting an "FA" star for this particular page. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It will amaze you dab but I think you are totally correct! Sophia ♫ 10:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be a case of SYN. People are being lumped together in a way that's not obviously legitimate. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree with this. These authors have been discussed together as a distinct line of thought about the historical Jesus. There are extensive discussions about this in the talk page archives. See this post, in particular, [8], which names Schweitzer, Goguel, Weaver, and van Voorst as scholars who have given substantial discussion to the CMT. There's no shortage of academic sources that discuss this idea and who treat authors like Bauer, Drews, and G.A. Wells together. The scope of other articles about Jesus might be a problem, but this article has an easily defined scope, and we can follow the lead of other sources (such as the ones I just named) in constructing the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. I'm starting to wonder if we are all reading the same article.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

well, I agree with Akhilleus to a certain point. This article is certainly much better than it used to be, and it actually manages to paint a coherent picture of the history of the idea. But I maintain my point that the above discussion on whether this is "pseudohistory" is symptomatic: it is and it isn't. It is an account of a bit of perfectly respectable historical scholarship paired with a discussion of a number of "popular" authors of more recent years who can be considered fringe, or even "pseudo". This remains a problem. It doesn't mean that we need to tear down the entire article, but it does mean that much better integration in our disparate "Jesus and history" articles, each with their own separate history of controversy, is desperately needed.

in recognition of the progress that has been made, you will note that I am no longer calling to split this up among other articles (because it is now one of the better articles we have on this), but there are remaining WP:DUE issues. Especially, since this is about historical scholarship now discredited, the Quest for the historical Jesus article is very relevant, and content needs to be balanced between the two articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see you feel progress has been made. (I'm serious, no snark.) What are you proposing now, though? Would you just delete a bunch of the more modern authors? Eugene (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as I see the scientific consensus is significantly in favor of the historic existence of Jesus. But it's not as if the sceptics' theory is fringe. It's still a scientific theory of a minority, pretty much in the same way theories about global warming not happening or not being man made, which are adopted by a 3% of scientists are not considered fringe. List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming: this article is not in any "pseudo" category. --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus on this as it does not conform to the scientific method. If it did the uncertainties of extrapolating back from anonymous data would be acknowledged. This is fringe but a read of WP:CAT makes it clear we should keep the cats on this page as simple as possible. Sophia ♫ 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill, it's best to leave threaded discussion out of the comments section, so that people responding to the RfC are free to comment without being confronted. Would you mind confining your comments to this section, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that WP:FRINGE clearly and helpfully indicates what sort of theories can be categorized as "pseudoscience". It lists four different levels of fringiness (1. Obviously bogus ideas; 2. Generally considered pseudoscience; 3. Theories with a substantial and respectable following; 4. Alternative theoretical formulations) and indicates that articles which detail theories that are either #1 or #2 can legitimately be categorized as "pseudoscience". "2. Generally considered pseudoscience" says this: "Ideas which have a following, such as astrology and the subconscious, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may also be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur." Now I understand that this isn't a scientific topic, but no one is trying to categorize the topic "pseudoscience". But I think that it's reasonable to apply the same basic standards when considering whether it's appropriate to categorize an article as "pseudo-history". So, if we apply the above guideline, matatis mutandis, to this article, the question is whether the Chris myth theory qualifies on the following. #2. Generally considered pseudo-history: Ideas which have a following... but which are generally considered pseudo-history by the historical community may also be described as pseudo-history if reliable sources concur." Given the sources listed in FAQ #2, it's very clear that the "historical community" utterly rejects this theory and there are sources that explicitly label this "pseudo-history". With all this in mind, labeling the CMT "pseudo-history" should not be controversial. Remember, this is a question of sources and policy, not the gut feelings of Wikipedia editors. Eugene (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wdford, you said, "Er...I don't think CMT theorists are disregarding historical method - rather, they are coming up with different answers, based on a valid (if unpopular) interpretation of the evidence (such as exists)." The problem here is that we have reliable sourcs which say the Christ myth theory advocates are ignoring the historical method. Here are a few quotes:

• "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory."

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

• "I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this."

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

• "This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p. 54

• "The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence..."

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9

• "Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method."

John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23.

• "I am grateful that Neil Godfrey reminded me in a recent post of yet more parallels between mythicism and creationism. First, it seems that one can never successfully keep one's denial of mainstream scholarship limited to one specific, narrow field. Knowledge is so intertwined that one cannot deny biological evolution without challenging our conclusions about geology, for example. And one cannot deny the existence of Jesus without also challenging (among other things) what we know about ancient Judaism and the variety of 'messianic' beliefs and ideas found in ancient Jewish literature."

James F. McGrath, "More Mythicist-Creationist Parallels: Messiahs, Wisdom and Jesus", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010

Care to revise your vote and your belief that mythicists aren't "disregarding historical method"? Eugene (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Finding all those quotes can illustrate various things about the respective scholarly community, as I also mentioned in the Comments above. If I understand Eugene and other editors well, their interpretation of these quotes goes along the following lines: Respectable scholars studying the question of the New Testament Jesus of Nazareth as a historical question, are telling us that they, together with the preceding historians, have (already long time ago) demonstrated in their scholarly works that arriving at the plausibility of the historical nonexistence hypothesis of JoN can only be done by using pseudoscholarship (mishandling the evidence, violating the standard historical method rules, etc. etc.). They have demonstrated this once forever, so it automatically comprises each and every way by which one arrives at the mentioned plausibility. My request for Eugene and others is: please, give me a reference to such a scholarly demonstration, I would be really interested to finally learn the scholarly basis on which all these claims are based. And tell me please: when the four hopefully respectable scholars agreed to appear in the book "Five views ... " together with a pseudoscholar R. Price (somebody who performs pseudoscholarship is a pseudoscholar, I suppose) on the same footing, why did they not use this opportunity to expose his pseudoscholarship? Why they haven't recalled the (presumably well known and scholarly elaborated) arguments which would clearly demonstrate Price's pseudoscholarship? Why has Crossan forgotten his moon-landing story and says that he in fact agrees with Price in many aspects, giving mild (more or less psychological) reasons why he disagrees with Price's conclusions? It is an either or question: either Price in his works has arrived at the plausability of the nonexistence hypothesis without employing pseudoscholarship (thus disproving the claim that it is not possible), or he is, in fact, demonstrating pseudoscholarship at work. The four academics, though surely disagreeing with Price's conclusions, haven't assessed it as pseudoscholarship. But you, Eugene, will judge it so and will try to label this subject as an inherent pseudoscholarship anyway?

(Additional remark: We all know that there is a lot of pseudoscholarship going around Jesus. I would guess that much more pseudohistory appeared which supposes a historical Jesus [having a wife and children, going to India, etc. etc.] This, of course, does not make the historicity hypothesis pseudoscholarship. A more personal comment: I was very much interested to find some arguments from mainstream scholars which would demonstrate the supposed fatal flaws in Wells, Doherty, Price. Unfortunately, I have only found such quotes "no serious historian ..., they are all mishandling evidence ..., they are pseudoscholars... " etc. etc. I hope you understand how "helpful" these quotes are when you look for real scholarly arguments; it is quite a different situation compared, e.g., with when you want to find arguments why creationism is pseudoscience ....) Jelamkorj (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly

Eugene has restored some of the disputed changes, and one of the pseudo categories, [9] even though the RfC has gone against it, and it's a violation of WP:CAT. I don't see how improving this article is going to work if Eugene simply undoes everything. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said over and over, it is specifically the "pseudo-scholarship" cat tag that was included per WP:CON a couple weeks back. If you want to remove that particular tag you must now build a new consensus to remove it. So far you haven't even attempted to do this, occupying yourself with irrelevant discussions of another cat tag. Now, before some one claims that I am now being nit-picky, keep in mind that when I realized SV was polling re the wrong tag, I tried to change the poll to be relevant,[10] but SV rebuffed me.[11] So it's clear SV wanted a poll specifically on the "pseudohistory" tag and is now trying to use that non-sequitur against the "pseudo-scholarship" cat. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:POINT and wikilawyering. Forget the mediation, forget previous consensus. The problem is that you're distorting consensus by wearing people down. Reasonable people wander off or can't be bothered to fight you any more. You then declare consensus for whatever version we were on when that happened. But it's an illusion, as can be seen by the number of times the same issues keep on being raised in the archives. The same concerns, over and over, expressed by different editors—not trolls, troublemakers, or inexperienced editors, but by experienced editors in good standing with genuine concerns. And the archives contain lots of posts where you and Bill refer these people to the very biased FAQ that you wrote, and which I think ought to be deleted, because you're using it as a weapon. This article has no hope of being featured until this stops. In fact, it shouldn't be a GA either.

We can't have a situation where you force us to go through a wiki-wide RfC on each and every tiny point. If people don't want pseudohistory, they're not going to want pseudoscholarship or pseudo anything else. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a consensus emerged in mediation in favor of the "pseudo-scholarship" cat as opposed to the "pseudohistory" cat cuts against your assertions. This is the last time I'll say it: if you want to remove the particular cat which has achieved WP:CON for inclusion, you must now build a new consensus for the removal for that particular cat. Good luck. Eugene (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I will ask an uninvolved admin to close that RfC when it's over, and that admin can decide whether it also applies to the other pseudo-cat. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough... if I get a chance to make my case to the uninvolved admin complete with reference to the distinction between the two cats made in mediation and diffs and so on. Until then, though, I'll keep adding the cat to the page as the current WP:CON position. Eugene (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Whenever it's added, it is removed by different editors, so do not keep reverting. Please take this seriously. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I only agreed to it to get rid of pseudo-history which was worse. A reading of the current CAT page make it clear that as pseudo-scholarship is controversial it should not be there. SlimVirgin has it spot on; I think that we are being worn down in the hope that we will go away. The Mediator in the last case deliberately did not read the archives which I think was a mistake as he would have seen the number of different people who have had a problem with these cats. Sophia ♫ 20:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An agreement made in mediation hardly counts as "duress". But whenever you or SlimVirgin would like to go back to mediation (for the cats, the Soviet section, or whatever), I'm willing. Also, saying the pseudoscholarship cat doesn't belong here because its "controversial" is a little lame. Every article tagged "pseudo-"something has at least some supporters--even time cube--so if that cat can't be here for the "controversy", it shouldn't be anywhere. But then, why does it even exist? Eugene (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to go to mediation too. This silliness has got to stop. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-X

Eugene and Bill. Although nearly all historians accept that Jesus existed, a handful of scholars do not... according to reliable sources. If I ignore your protestations, it is not that I concede the point. On the contrary. I will respond when I see one good argument for this being classed pseudohistory. I am using the OED for "pseudo-". Should I be using something else, Bill? Anthony (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a typical dictionary definition is fine with me. I was only wondering if there was a wiki "approved" definition of pseudo history and pseudo scholarship? If not, which is what I suspect to be the case, then how is pseudo history/scholarship used in other articles? Maybe we can use those (if they exist) as a guide. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

One good argument?! What about the argument that we have three different reliable sources, written by three different professors at major universities, which label this pseudoscholarship/pseudo-history? Isn't a Wikipedia article supposed to be written in accordance with reliable sources? Eugene (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you have three reliable sources in FAQ 2 saying there are some scholars who reject the historicity of Jesus. And three reliable sources here who fling pseudohistory at their opponents. Anthony (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Which three reliable sources in FAQ 2 say there are "some scholars" who reject the historicity of Jesus? Eugene (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No answer? Eugene (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are the scholarly arguments of your reliable sources, Eugene? No answer? And what precisely do they label pseudoscholarship, and on which grounds? Does it include the works by Wells, Doherty, Price? Jelamkorj (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The scholarly arguments against the CMT are already included in this article under the "Against the theory" section: multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, non-Christian attestation, the failure of attempted pagan parallels, and serious methodological problems with the CMT (arguments from silence, fundamental ignorance of mystery cults, etc). "What do they label pseudoscholarship"? Well, look at the sources:

• "Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus."

Michael James McClymond (professor at Saint Louis University), Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, p. 23

• "The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position."

Gerard Stephen Sloyan (professor at Temple University), The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, p. 9

• And, finally, "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."

Emil Brunner (late professor at the University of Zurich), The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002, p. 164

As for the grounds upon which these scholars have made these pronouncements, again, see the "Against the theory" section of this very article.

As for how the scholarly mainstream views men like Price, I think Price can tell us that himself through a rather tongue in cheek quote: "The following piece of straight-faced pseudo-scholarship (the only kind I'm good at!) first appeared in Nyctalops #17." (The Azathoth Cycle: Tales of the Blind Idiot God, Chaosium, 1995, p. 223) Now, of course, Price doesn't think that he's only produced pseudoscholarship, but this statement indicates that he's aware of how the mainstream views his work--much as when he sarcastically referred to Christ myth theorists as "cranks". (The Historical Jesus: Five Views, InterVarsity, 2009, p. 80)

When it comes to Doherty, James F. McGrath has said "Rich, for about as long as you have been asking for peer reviewed refutations of Doherty, I've been asking you what Doherty himself has published in a peer reviewed venue, which might then have been responded to. I have pointed out that peer reviewed journals do not waste their time on pseudoscholarship and thus asked you to provide even a single legitimate piece of scholarly published work by Doherty." ("Mythicist Misunderstanding", Exploring Our Matrix).

G. A. Wells doesn't fair much better. First, remember that he's abandoned the theory in its pure form. But even so, back when he was promoting it, as serious a non-Christian as Morton Smith remarked, "When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels." (Jesus in History and Myth, Prometheus, 1986, p. 48)

But as I've said before, including something about the theory being pseudoscholarship (whether as a part of the lead or as a cat tag) doesn't just depend on scholars using that exact phrase. It can also be justified on the really ugly denialist comparisons other scholars have made about CMT. Even further, it can be justified on the basis of the thundering condemnations of the CMT made by people like Rudolf Bultmann, Paul L. Maier, and Bart Ehrman that attribute the CMT to insanity, stupidity, and greed respectively. As I've said in the RfC, this is a slam dunk. So I'll ask again, Anthony, which three reliable sources in the FAQ indicate that there's some respectable minority of scholars advancing this thesis?Eugene (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I give up, Eugene. You have vividly demonstrated to me how all these "reliable sources", the scholars from major university as you say, are far, very far, from reasoning which I know from my working in science close to mathematics. To be honest, I now find myself inclining to call your sources pseudoscholars; on the other hand, I have found Doherty's texts as solid scholarship ... So I have realized that I am probably a stupid man of shallowest intellect etc. etc., and thus I should refrain from trying to engage here. Jelamkorj (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. Eugene,

"Which three reliable sources in FAQ 2 say there are "some scholars" who reject the historicity of Jesus?":

• If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

• Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

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

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

• In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few...

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

As for your "pseudoscience" quotes above, they're just petulant insults.

As for "(the only kind I'm good at!)", the only thing it shows is Wells is aware he has been called that. It is by no means an admission it is the mainstream view.

As for James F. McGrath, he is equating "pseudoscience" with not published in peer-reviewed journals. Where does that definition come from? It is just another insult.

As for"G. A. Wells doesn't fair much better. First, remember that he's abandoned the theory in its pure form." All you have shown me in this regard is him saying you can't call him an unqualified mythicist, that he is now a mythicist of a certain variety - one that allows Q possible historicity. And Morton Smith, of all people, is just throwing insults.

I respect Wikipedia and I want this to be a good article as much as you do. The trouble is you don't get what that is. I'd like you to understand the problem is your tone. I know you take this apocalyptically seriously. I don't. It's just counting angels on the head of a pin. Now the MMR-vaccine-causes-autism theory, that killed children and left tens of thousands of children exposed to illnesses they should have been spared. Look at the measured tone of that article. Spot the difference?

And if I don't answer you in 7 minutes it is because I have other things to do. Anthony (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the article on JFK assassination cover-up and conspiracy theories for a model. There is no mention at all in that article of any criticism of any of the theories. Barrett Pashak (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm grateful for the response, Anthony. I think your line of argument fails for a number of reasons though.

As I suspected, you weren't able to produce any sources (let along three) from the FAQ that made the positive statement that a few scholars support the CMT. Rather, you produced a number of sources which were arguing the exact opposite point and which qualified their statements for caution's sake. The two are not the same.

It seems that no matter how many sources I produce which call the CMT pseudoscholarship you'll just dismiss it with a wave of your hand as nothing more than "insults". I'm curious, what would a source need to say in order to label the CMT pseudoscholarship whilst not prompting you to in turn label such a comment an insult? Is it even possible? Or have you just made up your mind that any source calling the CMT pseudoscholarship must be un-serious and therefore no matter how many sources I produce you just won't budge on this issue? Ditto for the mainstream view of Price. Ditto for the mainstream view of Wells. (A small item, McGrath's arguement isn't that Doherty's never had a peer reviewed publication and therefore his stuff is pseduoscholarship; it's that Doherty's stuff is pseudoscholarship and therefore he's never had a peer reviewed publication. Again, the two are not the same.)

Also, as I've said elsewhere, your attempted comparison to the MMR vaccine controversy (or the JFK conspiracy theory, Barrett) article is irrelevant. That article hasn't achieved GA status, let alone FA status, so I don't see how it can be used as a guide here. On the other hand, intelligent design has achieved FA status and therefore can give us some direction on what a FA article detailing a fringe theory should looks like. And when compared against that article's "tone", the Christ myth theory article seems far more reasonable, gentle even.

Finally, you didn't respond to my question about your claimed 3 sources for a full 48 hours, not a mere 7 minutes. (You were even active on this talk page in the interim.) Once again, the two are not the same. Eugene (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Eugene. I was addressing other issues, addressing other pages, doing things in the real world. Not paying attention to you. Anthony (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What was that about tone? Eugene (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand you? Wasn't that your complaint? Anthony (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your first second paragraph. You are saying black is white. What am I meant to say? Anthony (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the second fourth, I was showing you a neutral article. Anthony (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying black is white? What on earth are you referring to? And, once more, the "neutral article" isn't FA and therefore carries no weight as an examples, whereas intelligent design is FA so it does. Eugene (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I said "first" and "second" when I should have said "second" and "fourth". Anthony (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand; you weren't able to produce any sources (let alone three) from the FAQ that made the positive statement that "a few scholars" support the CMT. Rather, you produced a number of sources which were arguing the exact opposite point--that scholars don't support this theory--and which qualified their statements for caution's sake. The two are not the same. I stand by that. Could you please address the arguments? Eugene (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very useful to your point of view to interpret these authors as not meaning what they say. I know you'll understand that I can't accept your twist, though.

• Stanton says not all historians accept that Jesus existed.
• Wells Grant says a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus.
• Gasque thinks he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

Intelligent design looks like a good article, I like it's tone. What does it have to do with the polemic you're trying to concoct here? If CMT were pseudohistory - without any scholarly support and employing deceptive and fraudulent methods - the term should be employed here. But 3 reliable sources allow there is some scholarly support and it seems to me the proponents are simply distributing the weight of probability differently from their opponents (and you and me). Anthony (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent design is indeed helpful here. That FA article uses the word "pseudo"-X (or a variant) something like five times in the lead. I'm only asking for such a phrase to be used once here in this article's lead. Considering that ID enjoys the support of quite a few more academics that the CMT, if ID can be labeled pseudo-X five times in its lead, certainly the CMT can be labeled pseudo-X once.

As for the sources in queston, it is you who is saying that black is white.

• Stanton does not say "not all historians accept that Jesus existed:; he says "Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed."
• Wells does not say "a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus"; he says "the view that there was no historical Jesus... is today almost totally rejected".
• Gasque doe not say "he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine"; he says "it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine".

In every case you have completely reversed the thrust of the statements made to support a notion none of quoted authors are trying to support. As such, you have yet to find a RS (let along three) that makes the positive statement that a respectable minority of scholars support the CMT. So even if this were a good defense against the pseudo-X label (I don't think it is, BTW) your argument still fails. Eugene (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise. I wrote Wells, above, when I meant Grant. I really shouldn't edit here when I am tired and rushed.

• Stanton says not all historians accept that Jesus existed: Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed...

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

• Grant says a few serious scholars have postulated the non-historicity of Jesus: In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few...

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, New York: Scribner, 1995, p. 200

• Gasque thinks he could find a handful of scholars who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era: If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", History News Network, 2004

I understand the above comments were made as part of an effort to explain the fringiness of CMT. But each is careful to allow that there are a few recalcitrant scholars. Of course, I can't name them - I'm not abreast of the field like you. But I read English well and know that "difficult to find more than a handful", "nearly all historians", and "very few" contradicts those authors who say CMT has no scholarly support.

ID is pseudo, it does not use the scientific method. CMT uses standard historical method but assigns probability differently to other historians. This makes CMT fringe, not pseudo. Claims it is pseudo are just more of the ad hominem rife in this "discipline".

Quoting Eugene: "I'm only asking for such a phrase to be used once here in this article's lead." If that gets into the lead, do you intend peppering the text with such insults and including CMT in the Pseudohistory category? Anthony (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to correspond to the body text. Nevertheless, I think that the body text currently expands on the pseudo-X label in the "methodological concerns" section. Given that, I've no intention of adding additional dismissive comments to the body.

As for the cat tag, I think that's a separate issue that, apparently, has a number of policy based issues associated with it. I'd prefer the tag, but the RfC on the matter doesn't provide me with much encouragement.

Also, I think using Gasque in the way you do is a bit much. In the very next paragraph from the one you quote he writes this:

Rather than appeal to primary scholarship, Tom Harpur has based The Pagan Christ [(i.e. the focus of the article)] on the work of self-appointed "scholars" who seek to excavate the literary and archaeological resources of the ancient world the same way an avid crossword puzzle enthusiast mines dictionaries and lists of words. In short, Harpur's book tells us more about himself than it does about the origins of Christianity (or Judaism).

That sounds like pseudoscholarship to me. Eugene (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is CMT pseudo-?

(Moved from Historicity of Jesus:)
Eugene, Bill, why don't you just explain the nature of Wells', Doherty's and the rest's fraud? That is, explain what makes their work fake, not actual history. So far, all you've said is they attribute probability differently to their opponents, which makes this fringe, not pseudo. That would be much more useful. Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:UNDUE in this article. The specific problems with the views of men like Wells and Doherty should be detailed in the Christ myth theory article--which they are, in the "against the theory" section. Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But that section you pointed to does not explain the nature of their fraud, why their work is not history. It is just a litany of people who disagree with them. Work. Don't just quote their opponents "It's pseudohistory! It's pseudohistory!" You're happy to believe them. Obviously. I and most open-minded readers am not. Show me the fraudulent, non-historical method. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the CMT article does a poor job of this then add it to Bill's list. Eugene (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already there: 2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. But let's discuss that on that article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(Discussion resumed at Talk:Christ myth theory:)

Below, under New lead section V Eugene said:

Please see the quotes provided above by Wood and Case. Further, as I said above, whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such an identification should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. Further, given that the sentance in question [in the proposed new lead] reads "many of whom [i.e. scholars] regard the Christ Myth Theory as pseudoscholarship.", it isn't necessary for me to convince you that the theory is pseudoscholarship, merely that many scholars regard it as such. Given that lower standard then, do you really still object to this sentence in the lead? Eugene (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You have definitely made the case that a lot of scholars call the theory that Jesus never existed pseudoscholarship or similar. But I am so disgusted by the name-calling rife in this "discipline" that I don't trust your "scholars". And I wouldn't have to, if you can show the pseudoscholarship.

Wood, above, says "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of... the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities." Well, that is the essence of disagreement in this field, opponents assign probabilities differently. And "...and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence." One man's "evidence" is another's "surmise" in this field. "Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretense would be sheer intellectual dishonesty." Here he says (1) they haven't done the work and (2) they are dishonest, while he is hard working and honest. He goes on to assert "you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Does he explain what he means by that. I.e., examples of fraud or poor scientific method applied to this historical inquiry? There are only two or three notable current proponents. Would you be able to do a paragraph or two outlining clear instances of breaches of scientific rigor, where the breach is not simply a difference in attribution of likelihood, for each current proponent? Because I, an average, open-minded Wikipedia reader, require convincing. Anthony (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, before doing this I want to call attention to the fact that you concede that "a lot of scholars call the theory that Jesus never existed pseudoscholarship or similar". Since that's all the proposed sentence for the lead would state, you seem to therefore agree that the sentence in question is factually accurate and can be well referenced. That should be the end of the discussion. But just for fun I'll indulge you further.

You seem to believe that all that sets CMT proponents apart from mainstream scholarship is "simply a difference in attribution of likelihood" based on Wood's comment that "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence". I suppose that, technically, that's true. But you go further than this, you think that since the division can be thus characterized the word "pseduoscholarship" doesn't really apply. But that's clearly nonsense.

Let's take an extreme example: the Hol... uh... I mean, the Serbian "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovars. We have statements from Serbian military leaders indicating mass murders, we have mass graves, we have photographic evidence, we have first-hand accounts from surviors, etc, etc, etc. It's an open and shut case of ethnic cleansing/genocide. No reasonable, legitimate scholarship done on the matter would come to any other conclusion. But, at the same time, it's possible to construct a competing explanation of the data that is not itself, strictly speaking, impossible.

Let's say that Dr. Bonkers publishes a paper through some ultra-fringy journal on the matter in question. In the paper Bonkers correctly notes that all historical reconstruction is a matter of probability, and Bonkers further states that, in this case, he happens to assign the probabilities differently than the united consensus of his scholarly peers. Bonkers argues that the Serbian officers who made videotaped confessions were really just Albanian Agent provocateurs masquerading as Serbian officials. Those mass graves? Nothing more than the mass disposal of cholera victims. Sure the corpses were riddled with bullets, but that's explicable with reference to the old Eastern European practice of mutilating the dead to prevent them from returning as vampires. The photos? Doctored! Whipped up by Western media outlets hungry for a lead that bleeds. The testimony of survivors? All lies, a coordinated plot intended to drum up support for an independant Kosovarian state.

Each of these things is possible, they're just extremely unlikely; and when taken together, the total probability becomes vanishingly small. But so what? It's not exactly 0%. So Dr. Bonkers (whose doctorate is in chiropracty, by the way, not history) says that his conclusions, while perhaps fringe, are legitimate scholarship.

The historical establishment disagrees. Numerous professors (some of them, admittedly, with pro-Kosovar sympathies) publish books (some through university presses) labeling Bonker's thesis "pseudoscholarship", comparing it to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese, and so on.

Now imagine that a handful of plucky go-getters try to write a Wikipedia article on the Kosovar Liquidation myth theory. One group of editors wants to include a sentence in the lead that states "The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among Eastern Europe scholars and modern historians, nearly all whom today accept that war crimes were committed against the Kosovars, and many of whom regard the Kosovar Liquidation myth theory as pseudoscholarship." But another couple editors object. While these editos conceed that scholars have made these sorts of statements, the theory can't legitimately by labeled pseudoscolarship since, after all, the KLMT advocates just assign the probability differently.

In my hypothetical situation--in which I assure you that any seeming similarity to the current situation is purely coincidental ;)--which "side" of the editting discussion should prevail? Would you try to block the inclusion of the sentence into that article given those reasons?

If after all this you still demand personal convincing, I'l try to get paragraphs on the authors you mentioned together. Eugene (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, your Kosovo analogy was brilliant, and I congratulate you on the effort involved. However, the analogy is not an exact match, because:

1. We have statements from Serbian military leaders, but Pontius Pilate is long dead – and he left no mention in his diary etc of “the day I executed the Christianity founder” – and neither did any of his officers or officials;
2. The Serbians left mass graves, but there is no surviving physical evidence for the historical Jesus;
3. There is self-evidently no photographic evidence of Jesus, or anything claiming to be a portrait of the true face of Jesus – the Turin Shroud is probably a photograph, but it's medieval;
4. There are no first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses to Jesus life – the gospels were written many decades later, by non-witnesses based on hearsay, with much additions and glossings, and it's accepted by many scholars that significant portions of the gospel accounts are either heavily “revised” or outright fake.
5. While Kosavar is clearly an open and shut case of ethnic cleansing/genocide, much like the Nazi’s genocided the European Jews, the American settlers genocided the Native Americans and the Australian settlers genocided the Aboriginal Australians (including using atom bombs, can you believe), the existence of Jesus is derived from the “historical method” alone.

While the majority of scholars do accept the historicity of Jesus, the probabilities are thus far more doubtful than in the Kosavar analogy.

Nonetheless, well done indeed.

Wdford (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wdford. I never intended to imply that the quality of evidence and probabilities against the Christ myth theory is equal to those against my hypothetical Kosovar Liquidation myth theory. As I said above, the KLMT is an extreme example. My point, rather, was that objection to the word "pseudoscholarship" here on the grounds that the CMT is "simply a difference in attribution of likelihood" is impotent. All revisionist history--even the most outrageously pseudoscholarly--could be described as scholarship in which a "difference in attribution of likelihood" is made. Hence Dr. Bonkers: "I know that the historical establishment thinks the likelihood that the bullet wounds in the bodies found in the mass graves were inflicted post-mortem to prevent vampirization is extremely unlikely; I simply disagree, I think the likelihood is much greater--I mean, have my colleagues even read Dracula? That stuff's scary!"

Also, while this isn't immediately relevant, it bears on the "background and definition" section, so I should probably mention it: the notion that "There are no first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses to Jesus life – the gospels were written many decades later, by non-witnesses based on hearsay" is not at all a consensus view of NT scholarship. Many serious scholars believe that The Gospel According to John was written by an eye-witness--either the Apostle or some lesser known figure with the same name. Eugene (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a "no," you're not able to do a paragraph or two outlining clear instances of breaches of scientific rigor, where the breach is not simply a difference in attribution of likelihood, for each current proponent?

Break

I'm against including any mention of "pseudoscholarship" until someone can show me some instances of it for each scholar you are tarring with that brush. It can't be that hard, surely. Anthony (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, you're aware that numerous scholars have made this claim and, despite that, despite the fact that the very first sentence of WP:V reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", you are still demanding that I convince you that the CMT is pseudscholarship? Eugene (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or do you want to spend the rest of your life defending this page against its dissatisfied and unimpressed readers? I think it was you who pointed out the majority of non-scholars think historicity is still an open question. These "scholars" have been intemperately flinging these epithets at their opponents since the 2nd century and you expect your readers to just take their word for it without being offered clear examples. You think you don't need to convince them. You're dreaming. Why don't you just knock off a couple of paragraphs enumerating the most blatant methodological errors and frauds of Doherty and Wells? Since it is claimed by so many august worthies that they are no better than skinhead holocaust deniers, there must be dozens of places you can copy and paste the juiciest from. That would shut me up and make this a stable page. Anthony (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, we are dealing here with textual criticism and interpretation. This field requires a high degree of discipline and training. So, there is no magic bullet that is going to convince a casual reader that the various Christ Myth Theories are completely bogus. As one scholar put it:

In the most various departments of science it happens from time to time that assertions are put forth which at once strike the experts in the science as untenable, and yet cannot easily be shown to be so.—"Was Jesus a Historical Character?" / C. Clemen. In American Journal of Theology, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1907), pp. 327-330.

In order to obtain satisfaction on this question, an interested casual reader has to stop being a casual reader, and make himself something of an expert. Barrett Pashak (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree very much with Barrett's last remark. The problem is that the reading isn't worth doing if we're going to be reverted. Ideally when a specialist article is going to GA or FAC, you have to be able to trust the writers to have bent over backwards to represent all views, including those they strongly disagree with. Then every editor and reviewer doesn't have to read everything for themselves, but can focus on advice about structure, writing, formatting etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think that there is any chance at all of the CMT being presented in anything but a positive light here at Wikipedia. There are just too many social forces at work that support and require it. It is good enough to register some protest of this, and to indicate in the article some sources for opposing viewpoints. We must accept that the CMT is rapidly assuming the status of the default position, and it will not be long before this is true not only in popular culture, but among professionals as well. It is simply asking too much of people that they familiarize themselves sufficiently with this subject so that the CMT appears to them as the absurdity that it is.Barrett Pashak (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It has not been presented in a positive light on WP, but in a very negative one. We shouldn't try to present things positively or negatively, but wherever possible should simply write up carefully what the best sources are saying. After reading an article on WP, the reader shouldn't be able to tell which side the Wikipedians who wrote it came down on overall. That's the ideal position. This is why it's so very important that we should be able to trust writers who bring articles to GA or FAC, because we want to feel that they have milked every high-quality source, for and against, and have presented those sources' strongest arguments to the best of their ability, even if they personally disagree with the sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The CMT is presented in a negative light due to the work of a single editor. If he were to stop, or be stopped, the article would drift into becoming the playground of the theory's fans, under the protection of the WP administrative apparatus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett Pashak (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The case against pseudo-X

First, there is the concern that Pseudo-X is only mentioned in books by Christian publishers. Maybe New Testament scholars consider this pseudo-scholarship, but having at least one source calling this "pseudo-X" in a University Press or non-Christian publishing house would really help. Consider Louis Jacobs: "Jewish attitudes towards the personality of Jesus, and on how Jews should view Jesus from the point of view of Judaism, vary from the belief that Jesus is not a historical figure at all to the acceptance of Jesus as an ancient Jewish ‘Rabbi’ or profound ethical teacher, a view rejected by all Orthodox Jews and by many Reform Jews." If an eminent Jewish scholar writes this, and then finds it necessary to qualify the other position, it seems that among Jewish scholars this is not as outrageous as it is in Christian academia.

Second, Historical Jesus studies has too many unresolved meta-questions for pseudo-scholarship to be at all meaningful. On the one hand, Bart Ehrman argues that a historian cannot (in his position as a historian) defend the historicity of the resurrection. Thus, on his view, people that eschew methodological naturalism, such as N. T. Wright, would be engaged in pseudo-scholarship. On the other hand, Bloomquist writes that it is precisely such lack of an "imaginative approach that leaves the study of the historical Jesus confined to the ideological and theological pseudo-history of positivism." Accusations of methodological violations are so abundant here that it is hard to take this as anything but rhetoric. In contrast, for intelligent design and holocaust denial, the sources actually explain what the proper method is and how the offending theories violate that method. In Denying History there is an entire chapter about pseudo-history; it isn't merely used as a rhetoric device or insult. Do we have even a paragraph that explain why this theory should be considered pseudo-history?

This was not as succinct as I had hoped :) Vesal (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting approach. First, I'd not give too much weight to Jacobs' quote, he's describing the opinions of Jews as a whole and not Jewish scholars specifically (the article references at least three of those and none of them are supportive of the CMT).

Second while it's technically true that the only books using the phrase "pseudo"-X are from Christian publishers, N. T. Wright has published something just as good, if not better, in a book from OUP:

"A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."

N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48

Like I said, the specific word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear, but come on, could anyone reasonably deny that's what he means? Also, Herbert George Wood's makes a similar statement in his book published through CUP:

"In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xxxiii & 54

Again, the word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear, but it might as well, his meaning is identical.

And third, Nicholas Perrin's book Lost in Transmission goes into serious detail discussing why the CMT is pseudo-scholarship, showing that it simply cannot be maintained unless a person resorts to a sort of historical double standard. As for a paragraph describing why the CMT is pseudoscholarship, I think the "arguments against" section does a pretty good job of that--maybe too good considering all the flack it gets. Eugene (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I find Herbert George Wood's reasoning quite compelling, and if you relied on such sources, I think you'd find much less opposition. N. T. Wright, on the other hand, is just disdainful, and for those of us working within the framework of methodological naturalism, it is really hard to take him seriously as a judge on what is proper method. More importantly, you are yet to produce a non-Christian source that would go so far as to declare this pseudo-X. While this is certainly rejected among Jewish scholars, they do not call it pseudo-history or compare it to holocaust denial, obviously; that kind of characterization comes from decidedly Christian sources. Vesal (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why some people have a bias, and obsession, against "Christian" scholars, but Bart Ehrman is NOT Christian. He is an atheist/agnostic. Also, "methodological naturalism" is irrelevant to this discussion and to this article. We are only talking about the mere historical existence of a normal human being. Vesal, as I've said elsewhere, this is NOT about the divine/miraculous claims of the NT, but some (which I respectfully submit that you are included, since you made a reference to "methodological naturalism") think that accepting the historicity of JoN automatically means that they must also accept every other divine/miraculous NT claim about him. That is NOT the case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no problem with Christian scholars. I get nervous when only Christian scholars are used to make overall categorization on a topic that is supposed to be about history. This is like using books published by Prometheus Press to put the resurrection of Jesus in the pseudo-history category. Vesal (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]The German-Jewish thinker Constantin Brunner in his critique of mythicism identifies it as pseudo-scholarship. He further identifies this kind of pseudo-scholarship as responsible for the rise of antisemitism, and predicts (in 1921) that its outcome will be the massacre of Jews. Barrett Pashak (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This was quite difficult reading, but you seem to be right here. Isn't there also another source that identifies the antisemitic connections. As they seem to be mostly in reaction to Arthur Drews, it should be added to his section. I am not sure you can extend such political motivations to all myth-theorist though. Vesal (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, you've moving the goal posts here. You initially said "Pseudo-X is only mentioned in books by Christian publishers... having at least one source calling this 'pseudo-X' in a University Press or non-Christian publishing house would really help." So I provided you with two examples that are functionally equivalent to what you requested: Wright's comments in a book published through Oxford University Press and Wood's comments in a book published through Cambridge University Press. That should satisfy. But oh no, now that's not good enough, now you want something by a "non-Christian source", by which I assume you mean a non-Christian author. Tisk tisk.

But even with my faith in your fairness here a bit bruised, I'll still oblige you: both Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan have made very ugly denialist comparisons regarding the CMT which clearly indicate they see it as pseudoscholarship, and neither of these scholars are Christians.

• "If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying."

John Dominic Crosson, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000

• "Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?"

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", he Infidel Guy Show, 2008

You wanted non-Christians; there they are. So, at the end of the day, we have several RSes that explictly label the CMT "pseudoscholarship"--using the very word--plus a coulple of comments published by major university presses that say essentially the same thing, plus a couple prominent and scholarly non-Christians also supporting the notion. I really don't think your "case against Pseudo-X" has a leg to stand on... unless you intend to move the goal posts again.

Remember, at this particular point I'm only arguing for the inclusion of some sort of comment in the lead saying that historians and New Testament scholars regard that CMT as pseudoscholarship. I'm not currently advocating for the tag which, it seems, must be non-controversial since it cannot be footnoted. But the lead can be footnoted, and it would be trivially easy to reference such a statement with the 6 or 7 relevant sources.Eugene (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we might have saved some time if you had reminded me earlier. Of course, I don't see any objection to mentioning that a large number of eminent scholars consider this pseudo-scholarship. But you simply have to accept that I do not interpret the sources as so unequivocally equivalent to pseudo-X as you do. Take Ehrman's comparison to holocaust denial: I completely agree with Ehrman there, but I'm not sure all myth-proponent in this article show that kind of disregard for historical evidence as the host of that show did. And I completely agree with Crossan and Wright that arguing with someone, who is sticking to their less plausible explanation when a far more plausible explanation exists, is a complete waste of time. While I personally do consider this a clear case of pseudo-scepticism, I do not want to apply any wide-sweeping labels to something that covers outdated good-faith scholarship and perhaps a respectable position within orthodox Judaism.

Anyway, I guess Anthony asked the critical question above. Will you be satisfied with one mention in the lead that many historians and New Testament scholars consider it pseudo-X? Vesal (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm only advocating for one mention in the lead. (I personally think the five or so "pseudo-X"es in the ID article's lead is a bit over the top; one should be suffient there too.)Eugene (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me add Case's university published book to the discussion:

The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question.

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269

Eugene (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Current conclusions on pseudo-history

I thought a bit more about whether you have a point in saying that many of the dismissals above are effectively equivalent to charges of pseudo-scholarship. I always thought of pseudo-scholarship as much worse than merely piss-poor scholarship: either outright bad faith attempts to fabricate knowledge, or complete violations of the accepted methods of a field. On the point of methodology, I think you have made a good case, especially with Wood and Case; perhaps, we are being overly demanding. What do other people think? And is the sentence in lead but no cat, an acceptable compromise to other people like SlimVirgin and BruceGubbs? Vesal (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the lead could read:

The hypothesis has at times attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[43] many of whom regard the theory as pseudoscholarship.[new ref]

Or some such thing. Eugene (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I can happily live with this sentence. Can we also blue-link pseudoscholarship, to assist the 99.98% of readers who might not have encountered the term before? Wdford (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Eugene (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have any of you checked the Wikipedia entry on pseudoscholarship? It's fun. Vesal (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal: that's funny. I reverted to an older version, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-Scholarship

Eugene has made a good case to support his assertion that many scholars call arguments in support of CMT "pseudoscholarship." On that basis I have no objection to that appearing in the article. I asked him to also make the case that it is in fact pseudoscholarship. He obliged me with two critiques each for Doherty and Wells, which I am slowly working through. I don't have a lot of spare time right now, but am making headway. If, at the end of this process, I find clear evidence of false data and poor method in both of these authors' work, I shall be happy to (1) insert clear, concise statements of the nature of their pseudoscholarship in the body of the article and (2) have it labeled such in the lead.

If, however (as I have found so far, but it is early days) there is no example of pseudoscholarship in that list, and no one can provide me with it, I shall oppose any mention in the lead, and insert something along the lines of this in the body of the article:

Though many establishment scholars have labeled contemporary proponents as "pseudoscholars," the editors of this article have been unable to find a single instance of falsification or poor historical method in their work.

Anthony (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't that Original Research, Anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point NJM. Hopefully it won't come to that. Hopefully, among that litany of criticisms Eugene has pasted above I shall find instances of false data or poor method underpinning Doherty's or Wells' theses. If I don't, I'll come back to you, Eugene, Bill, Ari and Akhilleus for the pseudoscholarship. You are all so confident that their work is poor scholarship; your confidence must be based on more than faith. It must be based on more than the wish that it were true; more than a willingness to uncritically swallow any insult about those who question your view. You each must have it clear in your minds just what the epithet refers to.

Above, Akhilleus makes the point:

Honestly, Anthony, I think this is a waste of your time. Unless you have demonstrable expertise in this area, your opinion of whether there's pseudoscholarship here doesn't matter; what matters is what the reliable sources say

which means I am not making myself clear. I'll try harder. I am a reader of Wikipedia. That is how I approach you. I have come to this article to find out what is meant by Christ Myth Theory and the merits and demerits of the theory. I found the article riddled, nay infected with sleazy ad hominems about moon-cheese, skinheads, flat earth etc, declarations that "no serious scholar argues this" (a formulation repeated so often it stinks like a political slogan) and "pseudoscholarship" leveled at the proponents, but no explanation of the nature of the flawed method or fabricated facts underpinning their arguments.

Implicit in Akhilleus' statement is: "that a number of scholars call it pseudoscholarship should be enough for readers of this page". It is not; as I am sure it is not for you. I am sure you can list the fabrications and poor method underpinning Wells' and Doherty's arguments that condemn them. I'm sure you didn't just read their opponent's insults and swallow them whole without critically analyzing their reasons. What baffles me is your reluctance to putting the pseudoscholarship on this page, why you are so enthusiastic about reporting their opponents' opinions but so reluctant to explain the clear fraud or flawed method of the proponents.

This wouldn't matter if your strategy were convincing. It is not. Not delineating the pseudoscholarship makes this a sermon from the pulpit. "We, the authorities. scoff at this concept. Proponents are beneath contempt. Trust us, because lots of us say this." Rational readers require rational explanations, not the voice of authority. Anthony (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're addressing here, Anthony, I assume the second half is directed at Akhilleus. As for my opinion, I have my opinion based on my exposure to several of these claims, their sources, and their proponents over the years. I could make several points challenging CMT's methodology, such as the fact that some proponents, such as Gerald Massey, completely ignore the notion of Convergent Cultural Evolution in order to pursue grand unlikely conspiracies. Let me highlight an example of this kind of illogical thinking on a related topic:

1: The Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaten, worshipped the disc of the sun.

2: The Aztecs worshipped the disc of the sun.

3: Therefore, either Akhenaten informed the Aztecs, or the Aztecs informed Akhenaten.

But I can't put my personal conclusions in the article. I know you respect that. Just as I'll respect you not adding OR, even if it "comes to that." Have a nice night, I want you to know that I do appreciate your input and your willingness to study the material before making edits. NJMauthor (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I don't follow up on Gerald Massey. No need for OR NJM. Just go to the textbooks or peer-reviewed history articles that explain the nature of Wells' and Doherty's pseudoscholarship, paste the words in here, shuffle them a bit into a readable paraphrase and post them. Anthony (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. What claim of mine are you addressing, specifically?

To avoid a debate of subject, let me clarify:

You agree that the fact scholars consider CMT work to be pseudoscholarship should remain in the article. You also believe that, for the reader to receive a valid impression of the subject, those methodological concerns should be outlined in the article and sourced.

Is the above position what you hold to? A simple "Nay" or "Yea" will suffice so that we don't go down a bad road. NJMauthor (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You said, "But I can't put my personal conclusions in the article." That's what I was addressing. I don't "hold" to anything. I'm not a believer. My position on everything changes in light of new data, new analysis, reflection.

On the question of the article reporting that some scholars label the theory pseudoscholarship, I'm having doubts. There is more than one theory proposed by more than one author. To accuse all of them of pseudoscholarship without showing it seems wrong and possibly just repeating libel. I read an excellent analysis of David Irving's holocaust theories once, that laid out his lies and slight of hand first, then concluded the man was a fake. This article calls them all fakes in the introduction and for reasons best known only to you guys promoting the slur, makes no effort to show the fraud. You (pl.) think just having a lot of opponents say "I don't like it", "they're crap" makes the case. Clearly it does for believers, but rationalists require more. Anthony (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If mainstream scholars report that it is pseudoscholarship, it must be placed in the article. It is not mudslinging, we are reporting the facts. And the fact stands that they do indeed consider CMT to be pseudoscholarship. I agree with you that it would be very nice to include "peer-reviwed" examinations of why they believe so. However, very few scholarly refutations are produced to refute a specific brand of a fringe, blip-on-the-radar theory like CMT. Regarding Massey, I will use him as an example again in the future, because he was a Christ Myth Theorist with obvious methodological errors, including source-forging.

One thing seriously concerns me. You said that you'd be in favor of introducing a line like "the editors of this article have been unable to find a single instance of falsification or poor historical method in their work." That is blatant original research. It is unacceptable conduct on wikipedia. NJMauthor (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and did so above. That wording would not be appropriate. Anthony (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What Anthony is saying is the same thing I said a long time ago; if the Christ Myth theory has a range and mainstream scholars report criticize a part of that range you can't use that to cover the entire range. On Gerald Massey, his The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ (c1900) in part covers similar ground as seen Mead's later work. Also we need to remember he lived during that Trigger called the Imperial Synthesis period and that period is well known for having (in our eye) some wild theories. Digging around I found a 1888 magazine called Knowledge by Richard A Proctor Volume 11 that on Page 90 that stated that Isis was a virgin goddess. Freethinker, Volume 15, Part 2 (1895) states "The virgin births of Osiris, Horus, Buddha, and other sun and culture heroes, have long been pointed out by men like Dupuis, Higgins, and Bonwick."--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what Anthony is saying. Grubb, if I may ask, which CMT theories do you believe that scholars are accusing of pseudoscholarship? Would it be more accurate to say that scholars have critisized several approaches to CMT as being pseudoscholarship? (not to assume that any aren't pseudoscholarship, of course.) Also, do you have a source for the term "Imperial Synthesis period"? I'm not challenging you, I'm genuinely interested in learning more about what period it defines. I'm fairly certain I know what you're referring to.

And what do you make of Eugene's citations above, his extensive list of methodological concerns? Scholarly refutations, Anthony? NJMauthor (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm commenting as I go, beneath each critique. I'm up to Evidence denial and am examining Doherty's dating which, as characterized here, seems ridiculous. Will comment in due course. Anthony (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And it is Bruce. Calling people by their surname is impolite and reflects badly on you. Anthony (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no offence. NJMauthor (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The pseudoscholarship challenge applies to those CMT theories that ignore intervening developments since the idea they present was first made. The December 25 date and sun deity connection being the best example; it have been known for a while that the December 25 date was chosen in the 4th century (c334) so that Christ could replace a popular pagan sol deity. We also know from Irenæus writings c180 that the general Christ story (virgin birth, crucifixion, death and resurrection) though perhaps not all the details (Irenæus had Jesus being 50 years old when he died-totally impossible with the timeline as we now know it) in what eventually became our Gospels had been established. So at best the Christ story co opted rather than came from sun deity mythology and it did it relatively late in its history-roughly around the same time the canon of what the Jesus story actually was was official established.

The term "Imperial Synthesis" comes from Bruce Trigger's History of Archaeological Thought (I have the 1989 version in my personal library) and covers roughly c1770 (Edward Long) to c1890 and was eventually replaced by the Culture-historical/Historical Particularism/Boasian school of thought which began in the 1880s. Nearly all the developmental theories formed in this period have since been rejected due to new discoveries or that the original theories were more based on racial or nationalistic grounds (many times to justify suppression of indigenous populations in colonies) than any real data. On a side note I should mention this is why the Vikings landing in North American theory had such a hard time of it in the 1960s and 70s--most of the scientific community saw it as a revival of the old Imperial Synthesis idea that the Native Americans couldn't have produced that they did without outside (read European or European-like) help. If you think about it Erich von Däniken's alien visitor theory is little more than the "Imperial Synthesis" idea in a brand new package only the entire planet Earth is the primitive culture that had to "educated" by the wise outsiders.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this period encapsulate the arguments for "Aryan race" theory notions like Indo-European Linguistics as a racial characteristic, an "Indo-European" origin to all near-eastern monotheism, and the attempted identification of all major ancient civilizations with Indo-European language speakers? NJMauthor (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely as the very term "Aryan race" didn't really exist in English until 1861 when Max Müller produced it. It should be mentioned that John Lubbock's idea that Western civilization would lead to an early paradise while "The most primitive were doomed to vanish as a result of the spread of civilization, since no amount of education could compensate for the thousands of years during which natural selection had failed to adapt them biologically to a more complex and orderly way of life" (Trigger pg 117) was also popular as unilinear evolution and in part led to the Boasian mentality of recording these "doomed" people in detail before civilization's advancement made them go the way of the dodo. In addition Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg in 1862 put forth the idea of Atlantis being a "Golden Age" civilization that became popular with the masses with Donnelly's 1882 Atlantis: The Antediluvian World and since plate tectonics didn't exist as a theory until 1912 the required land bridges (need for the movement of animals and people) made the idea less fringe then one would think. So the classic Aryan race theory could be viewed as a mixture of Bourbourg, Lubbock with a little of Donnelly.

To get this back on topic, we need to remember that the Christ Myth theorists of Drews and his predecessors worked from a very different model of the world than we do today largely because many concepts those models were based on have been shown to be in error. When those changes are ignored (as in the Christ-sun deity connection) you have pseudoscholarship.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship I

The point is not whether we think Doherty is pseudo-scholarship. The article claims that the following authros "regard the myth theory as pseudo-scholarship". McClymond 2004, pp. 23-24; Sloyan 1995, p. 9; Brunner 2002, p. 164; Wood 1934, pp. xxxiii & 54; Case 1912, pp. 76-77; Wright 2004, p. 48

Is that true? Or do these authors "merely" think the theory is wrong or based on minority datings of documents, or a collection of minority opinions about certain things. There is a difference? The fact that Witherton goes to such lengths to show Doherty is wrong suggests he takes the challeneg fairly seriously. E4mmacro (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

McClymond calls it "pseudoscholarship" and compares it to holocaust denial, Sloyan calls it "pseudoscholarship", Brunner calls it "pseudohistory", Wood calls it "obscurantism", Case is more complex but equally negative, and Wright compares it to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese. Full quotations can be found at FAQ #2. Eugene (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene, except the link seems broken. E4mmacro (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How about listing a few reasons? The first thing I notcied about this page was the possibly (at first glance) ad hominem statement about pseudoscholarship (I mean scholars could just say the theory is wrong, whereas the term used looks like they are angry about it. Afterall why not just ignore it?). Anyway, why can't the introduction say "For reasons explained below, most scholars regard the CMT as pseudoscholarship"? Then at the end of the article it says something like "Mainstream scholars have advanced the following reasons for considering various forms of the CMT as pseudoscholarship" with a list, some quotes and references. E4mmacro (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed Eugene's link above, E4mmacro. Take a look when you get a chance. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead includes the word "pseudoscholarship" because WP:FRINGE states articles on fringe theories must make clear a given theory's level of acceptance among experts; "pseudoscholarship" does this. The body of the article already includes a number of arguments against the CMT. This section spells out some of the reasons why the scholars consider it pseudoscholarship. Eugene (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that. I am merely suggesting how the statement in the introduction may appear, and that it would look better if it mentioned, however briefly, some reason at the same time. I understand we want readers to know expert opinion says this is a fringe theory. I am suggesting that the bald statement, with no reason attached, will give the wrong impression to some readers, i.e. that some editors here are pushing their own barrow (it has been known to happen on wiki, hasn't it?). E4mmacro (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that if a detailed refutation was placed in the lead that would cause more readers to assume the article has bias problems, not less. Eugene (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, people come on the Intelligent Design page every once and a while with similar concerns that are quickly dismissed.NJMauthor (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

E4mmacro is criticizing your rhetoric and the two of you are just flicking him/her off. I agree with User:E4mmacro, "pseudoscholarship" in the lead is jarring and seems very partisan; and I agree with Eugene that including satisfactory explanation would take too long for the lead. The question is, Does the lead with "pseudoscholarship" undermine the article's persuasiveness? I believe that it does. I believe most open-minded readers would, from that point on, assume the authors of the article are biased, which does immeasurable harm to the article's credibility/persuasiveness/rhetorical power. Are you here to educate or alienate? Anthony (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been settled, rehashing it over and over isn't helpful. I suppose that I should also mention that calling the theory psuedoscholarship isn't an ad hominem argument. Eugene (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is settled. What is being labeled pseudoscholarship here, the proposition that Jesus never existed or the various arguments put forward in support of that proposition? Anthony (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the work of a specific author can be accused of pseudoscholarship because of a, b and c, but not the general theory itself. If we are going to use "pseudoscholarship" we may have to qualify the term a bit. And I think we have to be careful because it's one thing to critique an authors work and determine that it's pseudoscholarship and it's another to use the word lazily as a dismissive pejorative. Insults are not encyclopedic. I prefer real, meaningful criticisms. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it's pretty well settled that the Christ myth theory is pseudoscholarship and this should be included in the lead. We can't, as editors, analyze every single author and decide for ourselves if their work is pseudoscholarship or not. We have to report what the reliable sources say, and it seems like the reliable sources are overwhelmingly in favor of calling CMT "pseudoscholarship". Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pseudoscholarship" seems a very strange term, rather than fringe theory or wrong theory or discredited theory. Most of the scholars in the Eugene's list seem to have worse terms: "holcaust denial" is frequent or "moon theory conspiracy". A few say "pseudoscholarship" which to me seems to suggest something that actually looks like scholarship, something that it is a little difficult to distinguish at first from real scholarship. E4mmacro (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem with having it in the lead is the effect it has on the persuasive power of the article. It taints the article with an appearance of bias from the word go. It is a pejorative term, used to discredit authors, and every reader knows this, but not one clear breach of historiographical method has been presented for Wells, Doherty or Price. I understand that, to remain within Wikipedia guidelines, the article can parrot the insult without offering a single example from these three most prominent proponents, but if it is to be a convincing article, one which readers believe, "pseudoscholarship" should be removed from the lead or clearly supported in the text with examples. Without such, you are preaching to the converted and alienating the rest. How about listing a few examples? Anthony (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, the question really isn't if it's a pejorative term. Rather, is the term accurate/verifiable? Yes, it is. And examples of why this is the case are listed under the Scholarly reception section. In short, the CMT "...can only be advocated in defiance of the available evidence." Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If Scholarly reception had shown instances of false, fake, pretended, scholarship, some examples of departure from standard historiographical conventions on the part of the most prominent contemporary advocates, I wouldn't be here. 02:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk)

I think that, to satisfy Anthony, something along these lines should be added to the "methodological concerns" section. But the lead is fine without a detailed explanation. Eugene (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is as I stated it. The proponents of the CMT ignore evidence, and they seek to replace evidence with mythological parallels that are contrived and ultimately meaningless because what we actually know about what JoN is being compared to is almost nothing. And since they cannot prove their contentions using normal historical methodology, their speculative claims are pseudo-scholarship. I mean, anyone can make any sort of claim that they want, but they cannot show that it is plausible based on the historical methodology that is used in determining the facts of any other historical figure. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Even by the standards of the Historical method much of the "evidence" for a historical Jesus outside the canonal Gospels is in sorry shape as pointed out in Scott Oser's Historicity Of Jesus FAQ (1994) (and he didn't point out the Josephus-Hegesippus problem with the death of James the Just). Sure the CMT has attracted its share of extremists but then so has the historical Jesus where every part of the Gospel account must be historical. The more moderates (who have dropped the whole sun deity connection as it has been effectively discredited by later research) seem to be more of an Occam's razor of Boyd's position number two.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While "pseudoscholarship" remains in the lead, can we have a link from it to a footnote quoting the scholars using the actual term, or "pseudohistory"? I understand footnotes and citations are not obligatory in the lead, but neither are they proscribed. I believe it is important to satisfy open-minded and CMT believers from the outset that what we say is sourced. Anthony (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a footnote already appears with citations from a variety of sources, including those that explicitly use the terms "pseudoscholarship" and "pseudohistory". Eugene (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The present supertext links to a bunch of citations. I was thinking of actual " quotes, using "pseudo-". Anthony (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes used to have copious quotations; but when you and several others made it clear that you absolutely wouldn't stand some of them, I removed them all rather than just a few to avoid violating WP:CENSOR. If you want them back then I think they'll all have to come back, holocaust denial comparisons and all. I think it might be better to just leave it the way it is currently. Eugene (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to insults as long as they're traded. I'm sure we can find a mythicist who has an opinion on the antagonism directed their way. Lets include that for balance. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the material in the lead is not to chronicle bickering; it's to inform the reader of the level of academic acceptence the CMT enjoys, per WP:FRINGE. No snide remarks from mythicists are neccesary and I note that none from ID advocates appear in that article's lead. Eugene (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing that supports the academic level of acceptance. The current citation leads to a Michael J. McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth. This book has a Amazon Sales rank of 795,198, which is several orders of magnitude lower than all of the Christ Myth Theories that are mentioned in the article. Also, publishing a single book which refers to the term "pseudoscholarship" is clearly POV pushing. A proper reference will have a scientific poll of academics, preferably published in peer reviewed journals. Otherwise, it is simply anyone's guess what the academic consensus is, regardless of opinionated authors on this subject. Some honesty would also be appreciated, that is a theory widely attacked by theists and Christian apologists. Chudogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

See FAQ #s 2 & 3. Eugene (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Eugene. I realize this has been discussed ad-nauseum on here. I just wish to point out that a brief comparison shows that the authors promoting Christ Myth Theories are several orders of magnitude higher in book sales than the authors listed as deriding them as fringe. Thus far, I see no evidence in the article or in the discussion of any attempt by anyone to make a quantitative analysis on these opinions. The only quantitative results I can make from a casual comparison is that these authors are, in fact, much more widely read and distributed than their critics. While a list of sources in the Faq is persuasive, it does not contain any sort of scientific authority by an means. Chudogg (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct in your assessment regarding book sales. I could be wrong of course, but more importantly, the book sales of those who promote the CMT vs. those who reject it doesn't really mean anything. One of the biggest problems I have seen on this page is the obvious lack of understanding among many people regarding this topic (and I mean that respectfully for those editors on the CMT side of hte issue; i.e., I'm simply saying a "lack of knowledge", not stupidity). In fact, the reason I even came to this page about six months ago is because I had an argument with a Christian friend of mine who insisted that there was no proof for JC's mere existence. At any rate, what does "scientific authority" mean in your comment above? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill is obviously correct: whatever sort of retail success the Christ myth theorists' books may enjoy, that has no bearing on the legitimacy of their thesis. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code sold literally tens of millions of copies; Bart Ehrman's Oxford Univerity published Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code sold substantially less. But no reasonable person would venture, on those grounds, to say that Brown's fantasies must therefore be "onto something" and that Ehrman's bit of debunking is just sour grapes.

As for "quantitative analysis", the article already contains a section on the CMT's prevalence in the general population. Eugene (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, by having a scientific authority there should be some attempts to quantify the opinion of both biblical scholars and perhaps general historians. The current academic citations are merely a general list of authors and historians who have cited the theory has "fringe". I appreciate the inclusion of secular historians as well to weight biases. But i fear this may be the result of "cherry picking" to weight the authorship to one side. There appears to be around 50 or so citations form authors anywhere in the 20th century. While the research is probably pretty exhaustive, could it validly be counter-balanced by a list of 50 or so authors of likewise scholarship published anywhere in the 19th or 20th century? Would 100 authors make the historicity of Jesus be a "fringe" theory?

This is irrespective of legitimacy of the argument. The issue is whether this is "fringe" or "pseudo-history", and Wikipedia should do the best job of making use of notability. The public opinion poll does satisfy this requirement and I have no issue with it. However, I do admit I am unsure of any similar undertaking has been achieved of the academic opinion and to gauge consensus. What I'm saying is, I don't think a single author making this statement makes it notable. I don't think a plurality of authors makes it notable. Perhaps if there was an editorial statement by an academic journal or an entire Biblical Scholarship Foundation. One author making the statement in a non-reviewed book publishing doesn't put his or her academic credentials on the line for such a statement.

For the record, I do believe in a historical Jesus that would become to be represented in the Christian Gospel accounts. I believe in Jesus ben Stada, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Gamala, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Gamalie, and virtually of any of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of Jesus's who would be crucified during the Jewish Revolt. The question is whether the Christian Gospels accounts have any valid historicity.Chudogg (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the citations in question aren't simply recounting the opinion of a single author (I.e. "I think this is bunk.") but the general view of many scholars (I.e. "Most of us think this is bunk"). I recommend you re-read FAQ #2 to see this. As for a peer-reviewed journal, we have that:

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

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

Eugene (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That Evans quote says it is not mainstream, i.e., it is fringe. In this thread we are discussing the applicability of the term "pseudo-scholarship" not "fringe". Anthony (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscholarship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dab said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD Pseudoscholarship

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