User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive/2010Apr

Tourette's clip

I've heard nothing from the Tourette's Association about permission yet. Sorry to get your hopes up like that. Very weird, indeed. Do you know about this Tim Vickers coup? What a man. Anthony (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tim let me know-- I wish I had more time to pay attention. Do you want me to e-mail some people I know who might be able to light a fire under the TSA? I have no contact with them, but do know some people who do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please give it a shot. Anthony (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Correspondence with Tracy Flynn underway-- I'll let you know. Goodness, what a mess with Malleus! I'll have to be more careful with my own joke posts! I hope you're encouraged that some of the best editors I know have block logs, and I always wanted one :) Don't sweat it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is hilarious! Anthony (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I got confirmation that Tracy thought she had given the necessary permission, so someone needs to explain to her the exact steps she has to go through to authorize release of the clip. Can you e-mail her on that? I'm not an image person, but if you need help, I can round up someone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll email her. Anthony (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I had no intention of overwriting. I have been reading on how to do the "code work" on Wikipedia...I'm a complete Luddite (read old lady that went to university with a typewriter and white out). There are articles I want to work on but am too afraid to totally mess it up and go find someone to help me fix my mess. Gingervlad (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Welcome to the battle for ideas! It's great to have you here. If I can help with anything, just let me know. Speaking of help, do you have any interest in helping me to compose a paragraph about Christ Myth Theorists' use of Life-death-rebirth deities to explain Jesus? I'm out of my depth a bit. (I'm going off line for a day or so now.) Anthony (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I've been gone for a bit and when I come back I see that Eugene and company are still at it, and have even moved on to another article with the skinhead/holocaust denial bullshit. I really want no part of this. He talks about SV's ego, when he doesn't see that his own ego is extremely involved. It's really sad. I have no problem believing that some person named Jesus existed who was the basis for the NT Christ. It is his attempt to smear anyone who might question that with holocaust denial and skinheads, even though the ANI was quite clear about that, that I find appalling. It's a different article! Like no one who saw the CMT article will not see the HoJ article and so it's "okay". Amazing! Gingervlad (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a hoot! As in jaw dropping LOL hoot. They are shameless (which is ironic). By the way, thank you for the offer of assistance. I may take you up on that here in the future. I'm putting in my garden and get distracted, though I would really like to work on some of the Macedonian (as in ancient...god save us from the modern claptrap that gets dragged into it) articles. And also...how do you want me to contact you? I see you bring the whole conversation over to my talk page. Cheers.Gingervlad (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for There was strictly no need to bait an user who already stated he means to retire as you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&oldid=357243546. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! This is a dreadful mistake! Please unblock Anthony asap. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, revert that. Even if he was baiting (big "if"), do you really think Malleus would want someone civility-blocked on his behalf? – iridescent 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked; this was a tongue-in-cheek supportive statement. –xeno^talk 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced it was, but in the spirit of WP:AGF, I apologize for misunderstanding the tone and intent of your interaction. MLauba ^(Talk) 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Noting for reference that I requested an oversight on your block log to return it to its pristine state and avoid any prejudice from other admins in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Update, it has been declined, pointing out that oversighting your log would actually be worse and give the impression that the block was correct but the reason in the block log inappropriate.

I understand you'll be mightily pissed off when you return tomorrow. Unfortunately, there's no way I can undo the damage I did, and mend an egg's shell once it has been broken. Oversight suggested a one second block with an apology to make it clear for posterity that I did screw up, and I'm perfectly willing to do that. However, it is your block log that gets a third entry, and I expect I've done enough there by my own, so it's entirely your call. In any case, you have the diffs of these talk messages to resort to, if I can do anything more, please let me know. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, as an oversighter, I can confirm what MLauba has said. Suppression wouldn't be appropriate in this case because it would imply that the block is correct but the reason given was not appropriate. There is also no way to remove the block from your log entirely. The 1 second block (with autoblock disabled, that's important) approach is best in this case. --Deskana (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's in a MySql database table; a fool could delete it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that developers won't do this. Someone once told me that if your block log is clean, you aren't trying enough. I, of course, cheated to get mine, but Anthony should wear his proudly. –xeno^talk 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It ought not to be their choice, but there you go. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My first block. I feel so... radical. Anthony (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth

Sorry for interfering. I was looking if SlimVirgin reacted somehow to my post, and I am seeing your question, Anthony. I am not a native English speaker, and I neither have experience with categorizing on WP. Can you just educate me please, what sort of `fringe' you mean here. I am just adding a few points which can help to faciliate your answer.

E.g., does the fringeness automatically follow from the fact that only a very few biblical scholars in each generation find the nonhistoricity hypothesis probable? If this is the case, can you show me please an example of a theory which you would judge fringe on similar grounds?

If the number of scholars is not decisive, on which other grounds you would judge the hypothesis (theory) as fringe? It would be always illustrative if you can name (an) example(s) of other theory(ies) which you would judge fringe on similar grounds. In any case it would be good if in your example has an analogue of a book like James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (2009) where the mainstream academics publish and comment each other with a `fringe' author on equal footing, or something like this. In short, your example of some clearly fringe theory should have the status as close to the JoN nonhistoricity hypothesis as possible.

If you cannot come with a suitable example, would that mean that this is a fringe theory of its own, very isolated, kind?

Also what subcategory would it be? E.g. Historical revisionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism)?

If this is the case, does here, e.g., the following paragraph apply?

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.

Anyway, I have seen a lot of discussion there about fringeness, but it seems to me that nobody has a clear idea what fringeness in this particular case means. Btw, I am reading in WP instructions that everything is best treated with common sense ... (unfortunately, there will never be a consensus what the common sense is, I know ...).

So, I sincerely ask you Anthony (and SlimVirgin, of course) if you can explain to me your understanding of possible fringeness of nonhistoricity hypothesis, and give me some good examples of theories which are generally accepted as fringe and are as close to JoN nonhistoricity as possible.

(I hope you do not take this as bothering, I think it can be helpful also for you to make clear your ideas about it.)

Thank you very much for considering my question.Jelamkorj (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. You can talk to me anywhere. I value your contributions. I'm basing my (present) view on my reading of WP:FRINGE. The quotes supplied by Eugene in his FAQ 1 have convinced me that the vast majority of establishment scholars have discounted the proposition as implausible. (In the light of good evidence to the contrary, I shall change my view with ease. But I have neither the time, nor the competency, to search for that. Can you provide me with a good argument against?) I believe this means it conforms to WP:FRINGE. The examples WP:FRINGE uses are a pseudoscience (Creation Science), a conspiracy theory (faked moon landing), quasiscientific mumbo jumbo (Time cube), an urban legend (Paul is dead), astrology and autodynamics. I don't for a second think the Christ myth theory is in the same league as this nonsense. But my reading of WP:FRINGE combined with FAQ 1 leaves me no choice but to conclude that this theory conforms.

I do understand that the vast majority of establishment scholars are influenced by faith and so, possibly, the theory deserves to be taken seriously today, and their discounting of it is highly prejudiced. But that is asking a different question. It seems plain to me that this is fringe. It is by no means certain that it deserves to be.

I try to avoid discussions about categories. May I duck that one? Anthony (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony (hope that SlimVirgin does not mind (mis)using her page :-) ). Yes, I understand that you base your (present) view on your reading of WP:FRINGE. Many people seem to be reading it that way, but I find strange that they do not give serious examples of similar cases (which then looks like inventing a new category of what should be generally understood as fringe). You yourself understand that CMT is not in the same league as the examples you presented. (Btw., just food for thought: Is the theory that the Gospels are basically reliable historical accounts fringe? Is the theory that Jesus was just a minor rabbi, who got quickly deified on unprecedented level, fringe? Etc.) One problem here is that there have been surely history-ignorant Jesus-denial claims (like in some Soviet propaganda, or in sensational books or so), to which the label of `moon-landing denial thinking' can be probably rightly attached. (Of course, there are surely many `strange-thinking' books which automatically assume historicity of Jesus ...) Maybe that the comments which SlimVirgin (with you and others, I did not follow in detail) skilfully removed from the article were directed to such attempts. Anyway, since nobody has been able to show a scholarly work which would seriously handle the arguments of people like Wells, Doherty, Price, it is just on WP-editors to decide if these various derogatory comments can be taken as including Wells, Doherty, Price, ... don't you think? Btw, I just noted the remark from JohnWBarber below `When an agnostic like Bart Ehrman compares Christ myth theory with Holocaust denial, he's showing just how confident he is that the idea is on the fringe'. You have probably read on the talk page that I recommended you as well to hear Ehrman's interview which Bill the Cat suggested. I think Ehrman is a rational guy, and thus he could never use the arguments he does (Paul says he met disciples of Jesus, Paul says he met relatives of Jesus) if he ever contemplated Wells, Doherty, Price and then checked Paul's epistles again. But ok, you would have to look by yourself, you surely doubt that some jelamkorj could find really embarrassing mistakes not only in Ehrman, but in EVERY work which claims to give arguments that historicity of Jesus is historically clear. Yes, I read Doherty, but afterwards all the early Christian literature for myself. But this does not matter for wikipedia, of course. I just thought, people like you can take care about neutrality of the article, e.g. by not letting the opponents (mis)interpret the arguments of proponents, etc. This is more important than whether it will be formally categorized as fringe or not.Jelamkorj (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything about this article is more important than whether it gets categorized as fringe. Speaking of which, I have just rewritten the FAQ. If you have any thoughts please tell me at the FAQ deletion discussion? I've removed all unnecessary and insulting stuff. Anthony (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not participate there. But looking there, it again strikes me when seeing all the quotes `no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person' etc. etc. Such quotes are, in fact, very often taken as if they were the scholarly arguments by itself. If somebody reads Doherty or Price or so, and wants then to read a scholarly work demonstrating some serious methodological and/or factual mistakes Doherty, Price etc. are doing, then (s)he is disappointed to find only such vacuous quotes. I find this disgusting, really. But it is clear to me that WP cannot do much about this. What can be made is at least the neutral reporting.

I can add two small concrete things. In `See also' in the CMT article you first encounter * Bible conspiracy theory. Such a thing has, of course, nothing to do with Wells, Doherty, Price, but including this reference characterizes the effort of many editors to push all this into such a category. I hope that neutral people like you will also address such things there. (Maybe you find the reference appropriate, I certainly do not.)

There are various innaccuracies like this

Advocates also sometimes reject the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, which seem to indicate an early belief in a historical Jesus. Their writings are either dismissed as forgeries, or the most pertinent passages in their works are bracketed as later interpolations.[81]

I leave Ignatius aside; the problems with his letters were recognized already in 16th century I think (but Doherty certainly takes Ignatius into account). The epistle of Clement is, in fact, used by Doherty as another argument for nonhistoricity of JoN. I read it and I certainly concur, such letters like Clement's are in fact, big trouble for historicists (they just ignore such negative evidence in their works). But my opinion is of course not important here; important is that again somebody put a `straw man' into the article.

Sorry again for no more active participation.Jelamkorj (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jelamkorj. Thank you for all your good advice. I just went back to FAQ and removed the quotes that referred to Christ myth theorists as not serious or respectable, cranks, etc. I have come here from editing science and medicine and am appalled. The comments of these "scholars" about this theory are so juvenile, puerile, even. To edit the FAQ I was obliged to read carefully all the quotes! I had to shower afterwards. Once the ban, or whatever it's called, is lifted, I'll remove that external link you spotted. It does seem to me that mainstream scholars have marginalized the theory, though. Or am I being deceived here? Anthony (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, thanks for chocolate :-). You ask `It does seem to me that mainstream scholars have marginalized the theory, though. Or am I being deceived here?'

I can tell you briefly mu subjective experience. I became Christian as an adult but in a secular country in Europe (Roman Catholic, not some evangelical Christian or so). My Christianity was sort of C.S.Lewis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis) if I can use such a shortcut. In 2002 somebody gave me Lee Strobel's book Case for Christ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strobel). I was happy to read about a journalist becoming Christian, but got successively very uneasy with the strange logic and obvious untruths from the New Testament experts who Strobel interviewed. I thought that somebody must have reacted to this, looked at the web, and found Doherty's web page http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm with his Challenging the Verdict. This then lead me to start his Jesus Puzzle. It looked incredible to me, I never noticed anything particularly suspicious when reading New Testament previously, so I stopped reading Doherty (not to be influenced) and started to read all early Christian literature (mainly at http://earlychristianwritings.com/). In fact, this overwhelmingly supported what Doherty says (I mean the basic outlines), everything showed a clear evolution of Christianity, as a mystery religion, child of its time, very well sitting in the context ... There is a complete void of any Jesus of Nazareth in the earliest Christian literature, Christ Jesus is spoken of as heavenly being who somehow brought a sacrifice for us (this long hidden secret is now made clear through the scriptures ...), they await his coming (the word parousia of course does not translate `second coming' though wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming_of_Christ) again follows scholars, who know better: the early Christian authors `obviously must have meant' SECOND coming, you know) ... In fact, I now hardly can comprehend how somebody who reads this without any preconception, can easily accept that the authors had a recent human man in mind, who in fact had already been here very recently and had started this religion ... When I then also realized that it seems very probable that all of the Passion story started with ONE literary work of an uknown author (`Mark') in unknown time and at unknown place, with uknown intention, and this story is obviously based in many details on rewriting passages from the Old Testament (which his audience was supposed to recognize, he was no `liar' or anything like this ... )... OK, I'll stop, I am suprised myself that I am writing this to you here, on a public board (but I will not erase when I have written already). It was emotional at the time of my deconversion; my Christians friends would think I am probably trying to confirm to myself that I was correct and that's why I am also (slightly) engaging here ...

Regarding the New Testament scholars, some (older, not comprehensive) overview is also at that above page (http://earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html). What is the mainstream there? It does not seem that they would have a common methodology by which they can come to a reasonable consensus on anything, maybe except the claim that there certainly was a historical Jesus of Nazareth (for otherwise what would they have been researching in effect ?) I do not know if they somehow `marginalized the theory'. They surely view it as `marginal'; if that is sufficient in a scholarly research ... I repeat, it is clear to me that WP can only reflect the actual situation, no original research and/or evaluations are allowed, that is clear. One can only hope for a neutral and fair treatment in the WP article.Jelamkorj (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is fascinating. Having read the early church documents, do you now conclude that Doherty's view is reasonable? I have to go to bed now but look forward to continuing our conversation soon. Anthony (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're trying to move the discussion forward. Given the above, I think it might be helpful if I mention that modern mainstream scholarship disagrees with Doherty's take of Paul's beliefs (hell, even G. A. Wells disagrees with Doherty's take on Paul's beliefs). Here is perhaps the most pertinent quote from a major source I know: "Paul himself, though notoriously unconcerned with Jesus before the Crucifixion as opposed to the Risen and Returning Christ, nonetheless still incorporates a key moment in the life of Jesus into his proclamation when he invokes the teaching about the Last Supper... The point, both for the evangelists and for Paul, was that Jesus, his elevated status as Redeemer, Lord, Messiah, or Son of God notwithstanding, had acted and operated in a human context, within human time." Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 3

Anthony, I will still try to react somehow. Eugene (whose signature I cannot see at the above comment) made it clear by his post that it was a temporary illusion that I was speaking just to you (sitting on the sofa and having chocolate ...). One has no privacy here, of course. Speaking of Eugene, it is clear to me that I have a completely different view from his how the article should be written (if I wanted to engage in that endless editing, which I do not want, in fact). This has been demonstrated (already) on the (minor) point with Crossan's comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_32#Crossan.27s_comment). In my opinion, there are no good reasons to include this casual side-remark by Crossan into the encyclopedia entry, as if it demonstrated a scholarly response to the work by Doherty. (My opinion is that only a scholarly response dealing with Doherty's arguments would be worth to be registered in the encyclopedia. Eugene seems to have a different opinion.) I find also characteristic that Eugene, who seems to like collecting various quotes, suddenly does not like Funk's quote which I mentioned still at SlimVirgin's page. I like the quote, since Funk speaks for himself, not speaking for `all serious historians' or so. Of course, it is clear to me that Eugene and others would somehow find that quote completely irrelevant, a non-issue as Eugene says, ... Eugene preventively added another quote form Funk "Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed." This, of course, draws again attention to the question what is the main issue here. You are rightly asking that question, Anthony, as I noticed. (I think in some old contribution I also tried to stress that the main notions are not sufficiently defined.) The issue is surely not "if a person by the name of Jesus once existed", but it is difficult to use the literature to define it precisely. I would think that the main question here is if the religion known as Christianity started with a historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and with his disciples claiming the resurrection of their master afterwards; this would also entail that all early Christian authors (like the authors of NT epistles) were equating their heavenly Christ Jesus with that historical Jesus of Nazareth in their minds. If the question is posed like this, then e.g. Wells certainly answers NO. If the question was posed, e.g., like "Are some episodes (some parables etc.) in Gospels inspired by real historical people in the first century (among whom some could have name Jesus)?", then Wells, Doherty, Price would say YES. I think one would also find some opinions that there was nothing like this going in the first century, everything was forged much later or so ... Maybe this is from which Wells wanted to distance himself ... Good luck, Anthony, with your efforts to clarify the main issues first (but the archives are full of such attempts).

Replying to your question "Having read the early church documents, do you now conclude that Doherty's view is reasonable?", I can only say YES. Btw, I cannot imagine how else I could evaluate claims of Doherty, Fredriksen, Ehrman, Price or whoever without reading the primary sources by myself. (Or should I count how many scholars say this, how many scholars say that, or what?). I know, such evaluation is not the job for WP-editors. It is also very time consuming, but it was important for me personally. It has no sense that I would try to argue here. I will just quickly react to Eugene's remarks.

Yes, Doherty and Wells differ. But they do agree that the silence about Jesus of Nazareth in the early Christian literature cannot be cavalierly dismissed as unimportant. They both view the option, that the epistle writers had Jesus of Nazareth in mind, as highly improbable. They differ in what seems to them as the most probable possibility how these authors thought about their Jesus Christ ...

Regarding the quote from Fredriksen "Paul himself, though notoriously unconcerned with Jesus before the Crucifixion as opposed to the Risen and Returning Christ ...". If I did not know the early Christian literature, I would just deduce from the quotes like this that the scholars found in the early Christian literature (or how would they know otherwise?) that Paul was a bit `strange guy' who was not so much interested in what the founder of his religion (the Redeemer, Lord, Messiah, Son of God) said and did on the earth before his Crucifixion. But since I read that literature, I know that there is nothing like this there, and that Paul is no exception, all early Christian authors look like "unconcerned with Jesus before the Crucifixion". But this "notoriously unconcerned" is just a speculation of the historicist; they just find impossible to contemplate the more natural possibility, i.e., that those Christian authors simply did not have in mind any such things with which they would be `notoriously unconcerned'. (As I also said above, the word "parousia" translates "coming", not "returning"; this "Returning Christ" is again something which scholars like Fredriksen just read into the epistles, though it is not there ...).

(Btw, if you ask these scholars why there is no sign of any interest in holy places [Jerusalem, Bethlemen, Nazareth] by Christians in the first two centuries, they would tell you that they were not interested, if you ask how it is possible that the Christians did not remember if Jesus had brothers=children of Mary (one Christian version), or brothers=children of the first wife of Joseph (East Christian version), or no blood brothers at all (Catholics), ...., if you ask them how it is possible that several major Christian apologists in the second century explaining their religion to pagans say no word about Jesus Christ at all (one explains that "Christians" means "anointed with oil of God), ...

I know, Anthony, for you these are just my claims, you will probably never check by yourself. And I understand that a quote from Ehrman or Fredriksen surely must have a larger weight for you than a comment by some jelamkorj; this is in particular true, when discussing the WP-article, of course. I repeatedly stress that what I would be happy to see is a neutral, decent and fair encyclopedic treatment ...Jelamkorj (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(Remove indent) Thanks for taking an interest in this very confusing topic. While a non scholar John Remsburg's The Christ (1909) gave what I think is the best explanation for this mess: "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination."

"Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading "Christ Myth Theory" Manchester University Press pg 17 shows that as late as the 1930s there were scholars who accepted a historical person being "plugged-in" to an already existing messiah myth as part of the definition of "Christ Myth Theory". The real question is did the definition of "Christ Myth Theory" change from 1938 to the present and if so what does that mean for those put in that category before 1938 (like Drews)?

The biggest problem comes from the fact that "Christ" is a title not a name so "Christ myth" can refer to 1) the myth that grew up around a historical 1st century teacher named Jesus (mainstream), 2) a preexisting messiah myth that Jesus either intentionally tried to fulfill or was made to fulfill by his followers after death (borderline mainstream), 3) The Gospel Jesus is a composite character which by definition is non-historical even if the parts were made from historical people--Longfellow's Paul Revere is a more modern example; there certainly was a Paul Revere but Longfellow's has him mixed in with other riders the names of some have been lost to history, and 4) the fringe idea that the Gospel Jesus was made out of whole cloth with no historical basis what-so-ever. That in a nutshell is the mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Can you supply the full text of that Dodd (1938) quote and/or any others that use or define the term in a way contrary to the FAQ definition? Do you know any other editors who might be able to help with that task? Anthony (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of my references can be found through Google books in preview mode. Here is Dodd and Wood for example. I have already provided full contextual links for Bromiley and Doherty's "JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST by Alvar Ellegard" article.

"As for the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, Mark took the basic ideas from the Christ myth but dared to imagine how the crucifixion and of the Christ might look if played out as a historical even in Jerusalem, something the Christ myth resisted. [...] Ever after, Christians would imagine Mark's fiction as history and allow this erasure of the time as a wink in the mind of Israel's God." (Mack, Burton L. (1996) Who wrote the New Testament? pg 152)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." (Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125) But "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412

"In the first and second editions of his work Drews noted that his purpose was to show that everything about the historical Jesus has a mythical character and thus it was not necessary to presuppose that a historical figure ever existed." pg 50. Further along Weaver says "A second part of the book took up the Christian Jesus. The Jesus myth had been in existence a very long time in one form or another, but it was only in the appearance of the tentmaker of Tarsus, Paul, that Jesus community separated from Judaism took root." pg 52 (Weaver, Walter P. (1999) The historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950

Hope these help--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note and CMT

Thank you for your note, and thank you for asking people to clarify what non-historicity means. In general, it's nice that you try to genuinely shed some light on the topic rather than pushing one side. I will maybe still casually follow it, but my wife does not allow me much time on Wikipedia (thankfully!), and since I completely agree with Eugene that the theory is completely untenable, I think I've spent more than enough time on this topic. I also noticed that Crum375 has asked very similar questions in the GA page... In any case, it is a delicate balance one has to strike on these fringe topics: on the one hand, there is an academic imperative to first state a proposition as it would be recognized by its proponents; on the other hand, a serious encyclopedia should never describe a fringe theory completely in its own terms but only with reference to the mainstream. Good luck in doing that! ;) Vesal (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

historicity of Jesus

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Eugene (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)