Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 21

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc.

Moved criticism into "Mainstream scholarly reception"

I've moved a criticism by R.T. France into the criticism section (titled "Mainstream scholarly reception"), and integrated the syntax of the sentence accordingly. I wonder if this section might not instead be titled something like, say, "Mainstream scholarly criticisms of the hypothesis" or something to that effect? ... Kenosis 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I named it "mainstream scholarly reception" is that I'm in general against criticism sections in wikipedia articles - it enables people to simply look up the side of the case they wish to hear, and not the other side.

In an ordinary article, I would prefer critical comments to be integrated into the main body of the text - however, in this article, that is simply unworkable, as it very easily degenerates into an incomprehensible string of OR claim-counterclaim-countercounterclaim's, as POV-pushers from both sides try to out-do each other, as has happened in the past.

I therefore felt a section on "what the mainstream have said about the theory" is a better way of doing it, because it means that people who come to it aren't simply looking up things to support their case - they're wanting to find out the mainstream POV in the subject. If someone wants to criticise/support the theory, it will therefore make it a little harder for them to look up the subject, and a little harder for them to criticise the theory without actually learning about it a bit more broadly.

By having a "mainstream scholarly reception" section, we also open the door for positive comments to come through, if any surface. What the mainstream scholarly POV on the question is should be a more interesting question for someone who is looking at it from an open-minded perspective, rather than simply to disprove it. For example, it means that the section won't just contain any old rubbish from a fairly ignorant apologist, or whatever - people cited in that section have to have scholarly credentials. If at some point it is felt that it is worth putting in such comments (although I suspect this will not happen), a "response of Christian apologists" section could be added.

So that's reasons both why I wouldn't like it to contain the word "criticism", and why I would like it to specify "mainstream scholarship" - I realise that you weren't questioning the latter. TJ 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps "reception" is a bit too subtle for some readers-- sounds a bit like a parade or awards dinner with the red carpet rolled out. Personally I don't mind it. ... Kenosis 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a strong issue for me, but I feel "criticism" is more encylopedic than "reception". I suggest a straw poll.

Straw Poll

Suggestions:

1. Criticism
2. Mainstream scholarly reception
3. Scholarly criticism
4. Mainstream scholarly response
5. Other: Please add to this list if you don't see one you like

• Criticism (changed from Scholarly criticism): the term is more precise than either "criticism" or "mainstream scholarly reception". As "theory" as a precise meaning when combined with "scientific", "criticism" has a precise meaning when combined with "scholarly". Per Phyesalis. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "Criticism" or "criticisms". As argued in my previous post (down below), "Scholarly" is redundant given the scholastic nature of the article and general wikipedia article expectations. We're not likely to be citing criticisms made by cartoonists, children, or fictional characters, but those of scholars. Also, "scholarly criticism" implies that the work of people like Bruno Bauer is not scholarly. "Mainstream scholarly reception" is biased and inaccurate. Regardless of what the article now states, there is indeed a significant amount of current legitimate scholarship which questions the aims, assumptions and methodologies of those who argue for the pro-historical Jesus. "Criticism", IMO, is a the simplest, most cogent and neutral way to introduce the opposing point of view. Phyesalis 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. I've changed my "vote" accordingly. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In response to Phyesalis, Earl Doherty, a major proponent of the Jesus-myth, states that:

Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt.[1]

I find it quite difficult to regard this article as biased against the theory for referring to the position as mainstream scholarship when the most prominent enemies of the position do so themselves. Any claim would have to demonstrate that there were more than a handful of bona fide scholars who promote the theory - that is, people with PhD's in NT studies, early christian history, etc, and who have university research or research and teaching positions in those subjects. Off the top of my head, I can think of two, maybe three, proponents. I have been around this article for getting on for a year, and have read many people claim that lots of scholars support the theory, but very few names have been mentioned - while I've read a number of bona fide scholarly sources state that JMism is a minority. Half a degree, which I finished studying for only a year ago, was in critical approaches to the history of the New Testament period, earnt at a secular university, and I was never taught anything on the subject, nor suggested to look into it, nor did I ever come across it in quite extensive reading on the subject. I would therefore require strong evidence to suggest that JMers are anything but a small minority. Your last statement, that (paraphrasing) lots of scholars question the ideas of those who argue for a historical Jesus, is true in that lots of scholars do question the methodologies etc of other scholars who come to the same conclusion on the question of whether Jesus was historic, but either for different reasons, or to different conclusions about the nature/extent of that historicity.

I also find your statement that scholarly "is redundant given the scholastic nature of the article" to be difficult to maintain, since the article does refer to writers like Freke, Gandy, and Doherty - people who lack any PhD or university teaching post. TJ 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that as the mess with the Iowa professor shows there may be concerted efforts to 'kill' such research. In this day of TAs doing many courses a 'teaching post' doesn't really mean anything as the professor rarely if ever really teaches! Then you have people like [Kent Hovind] who shoot down the idea that PhD means anything (if it is not from an accreditation university or collage it doesn't mean squat.) Nevermind that this is what Carl Sagan in his Baloney Detection Kit the dreaded argument from authority- a logical fallacy.

Furthermore the final nail in this nonsense is the fact the original form of Doherty's Jesus Puzzle was published in a peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of Higher Criticism of Drew University) Similarly Freke and Gandy were praised by the then editor of Journal of Higher Criticism, Richard M. Price who is another Jesus Myth supporter (not to mention a Phd and teaching professor). By contrast the quotes from Grant and Voorst come from popular books NOT peer-reviewed journals, but if we are to use such sources then Richard M. Price's Deconstructing Jesus: and Pre-Nicene New Testament take precedence as they are the more recently published works. This is ignoring the popular books by Alvar Ellegard a former DEAN that support the Jesus Myth.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem the references are unevenly edited. For example GakuseiDon's site is self published and yet when I put in things like Hayyim ben Yehoshua's Refuting Missionaries it is yanked using criteria that would get GakuseiDon's reference yanked and yet the people who removed these reference KEEP GakuseiDon. There is a word for that: hyprocrocy. If you keep GakuseiDon's self published pro-Jesus POV than Hayyim ben Yehoshua's Refuting Missionaries is fair game.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Mainstream Scholarly Response - I don't like criticism in wikipedia articles, both for the reasons I've mentioned above, and for reasoning contained within WP:CRITICISM. "Mainstream scholarly" provide adequate additional qualifiers to explain who is responding. It is not POV, as Doherty himself has agreed with the statement that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [2] - as a major proponent of the Jesus-Myth, he is unlikely to be biased.

(Having said that, an additional qualifier of "modern" might well be useful if sources can be provided that the theory was "mainstream" in the past - which I doubt.)TJ 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, allow me to be upfront and state that, although I am an atheist, I do not subscribe to the Jesus myth hypothesis (I believe that Jesus existed and was a hoopy frood). Secondly, I'd like to point out that WP:CRITICISM is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Now to address the actual points in that essay: (a) as far as I can tell, this section has not acted as a troll magnet, but hosts a lot of good, scholarly information. (b) the section argument isn't valid as we're talking about what to name the section and not whether to have a section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, TJ. First, I hate the notion of a "hypothesis" as it adds to the polarizing nature of this debate. What this article is lacking is a healthy dose of academic skepticism. "Mainstream" anything also creates polarization. The issue, despite what a number of authors gunning for publication may write, is not so cut and dry. There are not two "camps", but a spectrum with those certain that he did or did not exist firmly anchoring its extremes. Is it possible that you have the Doherty quote a bit out of context? The paragraph in its entirety reads

"After a survey of the history of research into the historical Jesus, Van Voorst tackles “the noisy side current” of Jesus mythicism. He notes that over one hundred books and essays during the last two centuries have denied the existence of Jesus. Their arguments, he says, are dismissed as “weak and bizarre” by contemporary New Testament scholars. Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

My understanding is that the most prevalent secular academic position is that it's pretty much impossible to prove one way or the other and that for the sake of academic discourse, most theological and anthropological discussions assume his existence. Assume, not accept as proven, two very different positions. My understanding of the quote is that most mainstream scholars find the question of his existence as unimportant because the reality of his existence has little bearing on subsequent theological, cultural and historical developments. It is the debate itself, not either of the positions, that is unimportant. Unimportant, not proven true or false.

After reading WP:Criticism, I agree with Ben that there is no significant argument against "Criticism" that outweighs it's neutrality and simplicity, given the civil and productive history of the article. Also,to suggest a mainstream dismissal of the position seems more like criticism of the subject, instead of criticism of the legs of the argument. WP:Criticism states that "No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location. For example, criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts." Phyesalis 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most prevalent academic position is that Jesus was a historical person; the quote from Doherty is plain testimony to this fact, and it's apparent to anyone who reads scholarly writing on the Historical Jesus.

As for WP:Criticism, it's an essay, and one I don't particuarly like. I hate sections entitled "criticism"; it smacks of lazy writing, and I don't agree that it's neutral--I think it's a way for editors to segregate negative information into a single section, rather than writing a truly balanced article. I prefer the title "scholarly reception", or simply "reception"; but I suspect the true answer to the question is to intergrate the material in this section into the rest of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I have no complaint about it being integrated into the body of the article (assuming it's done well, of course), changing the name has no impact on whether it's "a way for editors to segregate negative information into a single section" or "lazy writing". I don't really have strong feelings about this (though I'm always willing to argue about things), and I also feel I should point out that my knowledge of history might be better than average, but that's a pretty low bar. (I.e., I don't even come close to being an expert.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Akhilleus. I agree, the criticism section is poorly written and terribly argued. I would be fine with integrating actual counter-arguments as long as we stay away from POV statements about what the majority of any academic group thinks. I have several problems with the assertion of "mainstream" or scholarly response which you haven't addressed.

• Asserting what the majority of any academic field in the social sciences think on a given subject, particularly such a contentious subject as Jesus, without using a reliable source is lazy. Even if you are quoting a small handful scholars who profess to know what the majority of scholars think, you're still quoting hearsay, anecdotal evidence at best. Their statements, unless backed up by some kind of comprehensive analysis, are unverifiable. They are opinion, unencyclopedic and frowned upon in academic writing.
• And while we're on the subject of Lazy, lazy is attacking the subject, an ad hominem of sorts, instead of the legs of the argument. It clearly counts as criticism of the subject, which is generally frowned upon in WP, also a form of lazy thinking/writing.
• Lazy is epitomized by the sentence "Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by most scholars." That is opinion until supported by some facts. Why are they not considered compelling evidence? What counter-arguments are available? That statement is laughable. Which scholars, how many? There is nothing quantifiable to provide a reader with some insight as to where one might begin ascertaining the veracity of such claims.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting you're to blame for the section's sad state. Now that you mention it, the section is so empty of encyclopedic content, I think we should cut it from the article, paste it on the talk page for reference and see if we can't find some useful, encyclopedic knowledge with which we might begin to reintegrate points into the body of the article, since this is your preference for the criticism section? What do you all think? Phyesalis 04:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, there are something like four sources in the article that say the Jesus myth has no support in mainstream scholarship If you don't find that convincing, there's not much point in discussing it further. Suffice it to say that Earl Doherty will not be replacing John Dominic Crossan on very many college reading lists.

I wouldn't support removing the section. It's not well-written, but each bullet point has citations and draws on actual secondary scholarship (and this answers your question "where one might begin ascertaining the veracity of such claims"--you look at the material cited in the footnotes). Integrating this material into the rest of the article may be the way to go, but the article needs a lot of work before that can happen. The article reads like it's trying to prove (or disprove) that Jesus didn't exist. Instead, it should report on some writers' arguments that Jesus didn't exist. That means talking about the views of individual authors in their own sections, rather than combining all of the arguments of all of the Jesus mythologists into one "Specific arguments of the hypothesis" section, as if all of the writers were doing the same thing. And the article really should concentrate more on Arthur Drews and the responses to his work, because that's when the Jesus myth idea had its greatest scholarly impact. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't care about Earl. I would LOVE to have more Drews. 2nd, I'm with you, I deplore the homogenous treatment this subject has received, as if this is a unified position. Or that this is the place to prove one side or the other. Unfortunately, the crit section reads as if someone is trying to prove an argument by dismissing the subject. However, detractors aren't what this page is about. Most of the crit. section is hollow dismissal, again criticism of the subject itself, not any of the authors' works. It has little material of substantive value. Yes, one of your sources of modern positions is a 1962 journal, real easy for the average Wikipedian to verify the empty statement. Regardless of the number of quotes you have, they're still quotes of opinions, not verifiable info. You cannot verify what the majority of scholars (today) think by citing someone's anecdotal opinion, espcially one from 1962. Not one, not four. Not unless what you are citing happens to be a comprehensive analysis of the field. This is my next suggestion: If the criticism has encyclopedic value and is applicable to a particular author or aspect of argument, let's keep it. If the criticism is general and has no correlative subject (author or aspect of argument), let's get rid of it.Phyesalis 09:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why I said discussion would not be fruitful; I get the impression that if we had 100 sources saying that the Jesus myth was not accepted by mainstream academia, you'd disqualify all of them on the grounds that they're outdated, inaccessible, anecdotal, insubstantial, etc. Meanwhile, anyone with a passing familiarity with New Testament studies knows that an overwhelming number of scholars believe that Jesus was a historical person. This article is incomplete without noting that the Jesus myth is a fringe theory. By the way, you might want to read Van Voorst's book, because it's exactly the kind of "comprehensive analysis of the field" you demand. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis does have a point. Out of date articles and books that have been superseded by later research are useless; otherwise we would using reference to things like Joseph Wheless' 1930 Forgery In Christianity on the pro side. Furthermore John Armstrong (of God vs the Bible fame)in his Skeptic Bible Study video Re: Re: The historical Jesus goes over the logical fallacies that some supporters of the Historical Jesus engage in. As best the claim 'overwhelming number of scholars believe' is at best argument from authority if not what Armstrong calls argumentum ad mare datura (sp) or argument from bull crap ie the kind of nonsense we saw in the now infamous Bermuda Triangle stories where authors just repeated what the previous author has said without any critical evaluation of the source material. At one time an overwhelming number of scholars believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system but no rational person would use them to support such an idea today.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Von Voorst etc.

It seems pretty clear that these general attestions of what the majority of scholars are opinion and unsubstantiated. In WP:NPOV, particular the sections "let the facts speak for themselves" and "Attributing and substantiating biased statements", it makes it pretty clear that these types of statements are frowned upon. And what was the title of Van Voorst's book? I couldn't find it with your quote or anywhere in the cited refs of the article. I also looked up his bibliography and couldn't find anything that was described as a comprehensive analysis of what most biblical scholars think on the subject. It's got nothing to do with I demand, I'm just trying to maintain WP's standards of encyclopedic info. I'm going to remove them again. Please do not revert my edit or reintroduce biased and unsubstantiated dismissals of the article's subject in the intro, the general body or the criticism sections. Phyesalis 10:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of Van Voorst's book was in a footnote, but you removed it, along with his quote. It's remarkable that you feel able to judge the quality and bias of this quote, apparently without knowing anything about the work it came from. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, writing about "the historical Jesus" is rather a cottage industry among New Testament scholars, and presumably all of the enormous multitude of writers who have written such books would qualify as a (very limited) consensus that Jesus was a real historical person - even though these people agree on very little else, and a substantial number of them are not Christians. It is simply not correct to say that the scholarly consensus is to simply assume Jesus' existence. While, obviously, most New Testament scholars/historians of early Christianity do not write about t he historical Jesus, and, as you say, simply "assume" Jesus's existence, this is because this is how scholarship generally works - they aren't writing about the historical Jesus, so why should they weigh in? But this ignores the very large number of scholars who have written very specific reconstructions of their view of the historical Jesus. On the other side, so far as I can tell we have yet to name any currently living academic who has actually written a peer-reviewed book or article to make the argument that there was no historical Jesus - we seem to be stuck with people who died more than 100 years ago and non-academics like Doherty and Wells. john k 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble, John Kenney, but Doherty is an academic. The original form of his Jesus Puzzle paper appeared in the Fall 1997 issue of Journal of Higher Criticism a peer reviewed publication. Also such noted scholars as Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) better known for his Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden) with Jesus—One Hundred Years Before Christ, Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology) with The Jesus the Jews Never Knew, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto) with The Pagan Christ all basically say the same thing Doherty does--the Jesus of the Bible is not a historical person. So much for "100 years ago and non-academics"--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Van Voorst's book, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus), is as its title and reviews suggest, a review of the evidence, not a statistical or comprehensive analysis of what all scholars in multiple disciplines think on the issue. I thought I might have missed something, but I see that I didn't. It doesn't take any special training to realize that a book described as:

"a comprehensive, rigorously focused survey of the evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as manifested by the written sources other than the New Testament. He has translated all relevant passages into contemporary English and presents the most important issues in their interpretation. After a brief survey of the history and principles of historical Jesus research, he takes up the evidence from Classical writers, Jewish writers, the "sources" of the gospels, and Christian writings after the New Testament." (From Library Journal)

is not a comprehensive study of modern scholarship in the related fields. Please note the bolded phrases as it seems you have confused the two.Phyesalis 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're asking for an opinion survery that determines whether experts in the field think the subject of this article is a fringe opinion, of course you're not going to get it. But it's unreasonable to ask for such a thing, and ridiculous to assert that Van Voorst is unable to say what the consensus in his field is. I notice that you haven't provided any references that say the Jesus myth is generally accepted among scholars, and somehow I doubt you'll be able to find any. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue I raised about criticism of an article's subject hasn't been addressed. Criticisms such as those generalizations, whether cited or not, still constitute criticism of the idea the jesus is a mythical construct. Cite the arguments, not the opinions. Which scholars, in what disciplines? Were they secular or theological disciplines? These assertions need context. This is not Historicity of Jesus where the biblical scholarship is some privileged discipline, but a page related to comparative mythology. The quotes are still unsubstantiated. The Michael Grant quote is actually him quoting someone else - do you think it's possible to get who he's quoting? It should have attribution. It needs a pg. number, too. Phyesalis 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But surely the fact that an idea is widely rejected is worth mentioning even if there has been little academic writing to actually refute specific arguments. For instance, there has been very little written by conventional Shakespeare scholars against other Shakespearean authorship candidates, but it would still be perfectly appropriate to say that the vast majority of scholars accept that William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon was the author of the works attributed to him. The status of a scholarly consensus is perfectly appropriate to report on, independently of specific counterarguments. john k 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, the fact that a position is neglected or ignored by most scholarship is one of the things that defines a fringe theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is widely rejected by theologians, that's all anyone can say with any confidence - all else is opinion. It is not unreasonable to ask for a survey if Van Voorst's opinion is being championed as a "comprehensive analysis" as claimed. Surely he could describe his methodology in ascertaining the analysis. But that's right, he only goes over the evidence, not theological and secular scholars opinions, and probably has a heavy reliance on US scholarship. Does he mean in the US, does he qualify this at all? And where are the page numbers for these quotes? I don't have a problem with the info's inclusion if it has page numbers and is contextualized as opinion - and maybe some mention of how they came to these conclusions if any is given, if not, that should be included. Phyesalis (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...if you look at the footnotes, I think you'll find that Van Voorst is cited by page number. Again, it's remarkable that you're able to criticize Van Voorst's work without reading it. Apparently, a title and a review are all that you need. I'm a bit puzzled why you're talking about "theologians"--Michael Grant, for one, isn't a theologian, and Van Voorst's book is not by any stretch of the imagination a work of theology. Are you going to start trotting out accusations of religious bias next? And why haven't you found any quotes from scholars that say the Jesus myth is a mainstream part of religious studies? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the switch from Van Voorst to Grant, but it wasn't at all clear (I meant "info" in the general sense of assertions of pro-historical ). If you go back up few exchanges, you'll see that I was asking for the page number/s on Grant. If Grant is quoting someone, as it seems he is, it should be attributed to who he's quoting, and have Grant's context on the quote (I'm not sure it has to have the context, but that would be the academically responsible/encyclopedic thing to do). The page number would help to legitimize it. Regardless, if he is quoting someone, the article can't have the quote attributed to him. Additionally, "religious studies" (or scholars with a theological v. a secular education), is not a privileged field on the question of Jesus as myth, since they start with the assumption that Jesus exists. Burridge and Gould are theologians, van Voorst is a theologian, the only non-theologian quoted (Grant)is a quote from some unnamed person with no page numbers, basically hearsay.

Furthermore, not that I would suggest using this site[[3]] as a reliable reference for the article, but for access and ease it does provide a lengthy, but by no means exhaustive, overview of "scholars'" and other authors' books on the negative estimate. There is a difference between minority and fringe. The principle of my objection is the totalizing aspects of statements like '"no reputable scholar" upholds this position' with no support/context. I acknowledge that within theological disciplines the majority of scholars assert the "positive estimate" of Jesus' historicity. And since the article makes no effort to sort out apologetics from other forms of scholarship, the question of religious bias is legitimate - particularly when compared to the secular tradition of comparative mythology.

But it is important to point out that 1) the Jesus as myth has a school of thought within academic circles "the negative estimate/position" as opposed to the "positive estimate" which suggests that it is not a fringe view 2) it has numerous notably scholarly proponents, and as the issue has a minimum of a 150 yr history it seems unneccesarily (and innaccurately) POV to sum up "modern" (not just US theological) scholarship as an open and shut case - also argues against being a fringe view. One question - how are we defining "modern"?

Akhilleus, I acknowledge that my response to the original use of "lazy" (directed at the article, not at anyone personally) was a bit aggressive, and for that I realize that I have antagonized you to the point of questioning my ability to do basic research. Do I perceive this correctly - you argue that my position is invalidated because I failed to find Van Voorst's analysis of the field's scholarly opinions, when no such book exists? I have read no review of V's book as cited in the ref section that describes it as an analysis of the multiple fields of scholarship pertaining to Jesus' estimated existence. This is not a flaw in my research. Perhaps you could post parts of V's methodology to help satsify the matter. I don't think it's neccesary to drop to the level of ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we should step back and try this in a mutually more civil course. Phyesalis (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pledging to reduce the combativeness here; I'll try to follow suit. I think we need to get away from this business about a "comprehensive analysis of the field"--if I'm understanding you correctly, you want some kind of opinion survey, like a scientific poll or something. But it's highly unlikely that such a thing even exists, and in any case we don't need one to establish how the Jesus myth is regarded in academia.

The first chapter of Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament covers the historical development of the Jesus myth idea, and shows why it's wrong. That's a "comprehensive analysis" of the theory. Van Voorst, as a scholar working in New Testament studies, is well positioned to say whether the Jesus myth is a mainstream idea or one rejected by scholars. Michael Grant, as a ancient historian, is an authority on how one should use ancient literary and historical sources to establish what happened in the past, and is also well positioned to say whether the Jesus myth is a mainstream idea. The same thing goes for the other scholars quoted in the article--we trust them in their area of expertise, and that means that when they say scholars regard the Jesus myth as discredited and not worth paying attention to, they know what they're talking about. If they're wrong, the way to demonstrate it is to find other scholars who say that the theory isn't a fringe view. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grant, so I cannot say what page the quote comes from, or who he's quoting.

The Michael Grant quote is from page 200 of the 1977 edition of Jesus An Historian's Review of the Gospels.

It isn't clear who he is quoting. The footnote reads:

R. Dunkerley, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin 1957), p.12; O. Betz, What Do We Know About Jesus? (SCM, 1968), p.9 ; c.f. H. Hawton, Controversy (Pemberton, 1971), pp. 172-82, etc. Peterdgi (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus, I'm happy to do my part. And thank you Peterdgi for shedding some light on the subject. After working on another page dealing with a well documented refuted fringe scientific theory, I'm beginning to sympathize with you. I'd like to suggest something which might address all of our issues. I'm going to start a new section for ease and clarity. But as far as the Grant quote goes, I'm satisfied with the additional info and think we can find a way to address the issue. Phyesalis (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure compromise

I think a number of people on various sides of the issue have problems with the article as it stands. I'd like to suggest a compromise in the form of a restructure: Intro "This article traces the arguments regarding Jesus Christ's incarnation as it pertains to theories of divinity, historicity and mythology." I. Divinity - (original incarnation issues)

A. Docetism

B. Arian controversy and the resulting Nicene Creed (could be c)

II. Historicity - or issues of reconstruction

A. Enlightenment and Reimarus

B. Liberal theology - positioning the original interest in the historical specifics of Jesus' incarnation as within particular theological context.

i. Bauer, Bultmann, Kasemann.

ii. Modern research (summarize and link to Historicity of Jesus

a. historicity as man

b. h. of divinity/miracles

C. Historians (good place for Grant's quote)

III. Myth (Current incarnation issues)

A. Comparative mythology (summarize and link to Jesus in comparative mythology

B. Jesus myth theories

i. Drews (and so on and so forth)

This allows for all the info currently in the article to remain, gives more specific contexts, follows a chronological progression of ideas, allows for all crit to be naturally embedded in article without creating adversarial tensions while contextualizing criticisms within their respective fields (a nice way to resolve some POV issues), removes the neccesity of having obsequious "crit" section and provides a much more encyclopedic article overall. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, I don't understand where you are going with that summary. This article is about the hypothesis that Jesus was not an historical person. Much of your summary doesn't seem to have much to do with that.

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' body was an illusion that was part of consensus reality at the time, but Docetists taught that he couldn't have been real flesh and blood because he was so special. The only connection I can see to the JMH is that some pronouncements against Docetism are sometimes misinterpreted to indicate doubt about Jesus' historicity.

Arianism is the doctrine that the Son, while pre-existant, was not eternal in the same sense as the Father. The Son started to exist at some point, though not necessarily at a point inside time. This was part of a very major controversy at the time that Christianity was legalized, but it is a more subtle departure from orthodoxy than some popular writers seem to think. I can't even imagine any link to JMH here. 99.225.212.128 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to sign that properly Peterdgi (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, having worked on the abomination that is the Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis page, a fringe theory that has been scientifically refuted and has well-documented consensus on the refutation, we still gave the subject an encyclopedic treatment. Everything up until actual JM theories can be treated in one paragraph each or less, I just used a basic layout (not holding to every little detail). With the exception of Arianism and the Nicene creed (and Bultmann/Kasemann), all the info I proposed is already in the article, it's not actually that radical of a difference in content. Lots of articles have a couple of paragraphs delineating the historical/philosophical developments of a given subject. Some editors seem to forget that Jesus Christ as myth is also covered in this collection of theories (not one monolithic theory). Not just Jesus the Nazarene. The Nicene creed is significant since it does actually tie into some JM theories that assert that JC wasn't considered real until later in early church history. Docetism, regardless of what theologians think, also works in and is already mentioned in the article. Arianism is a little iffy, but all it takes is one or two sentences and it makes a nice transition from Docetism to the Creed. Also it relates to Church codification/censorship and persecution of heretics. And I'm sorry, but if theologians are being used to support academic estimates on historicity, the theologians' work on the historicity of miracles/divinity is valid too. I find it difficult to see how a discussion of the development of JMs could be properly had without clear mention of the developments in Liberal Theology. Phyesalis (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis, The case you had with the Abortion - Breast Cancer article is certainly interesting, but it is different from the subject of this article in a very important way. There are specialists in oncology who took the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis seriously, and then showed that it was wrong. But in the case of the JMH there just hasn't been much recently in the way of top flight scholars taking the idea seriously enough to publish a refutation - what we get instead are dismissals of the idea.

I will try an outrageous situation which I think is more nearly parallel:

In The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained, Edwin Johnson claimed that Geoffrey Chaucer never existed and that The Canterbury Tales were a Tudor production of uncertain date. (I am not making this up.) It is fairly easy to find citations of English scholars and historians who are quite confident that Chaucer really did exist and wrote the works normally ascribed to him. It might be possible to find a book that said that no serious scholar had doubts about the historicity of Chaucer. But I do not believe that you could find a single scholar who had ever taken Edwin Johnson seriously enough to write a specific refutation of his claim.

Edwin Johnson's book is at: <http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm>, and he is on the rather odd list of scholars at <http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html>.Peterdgi (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Peterdgi, that's a good analogy. Another one that's been mentioned here is the theory that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else. But I take slight issue with your statement that scholars don't refute the JMH--Van Voorst's book does just that (it only takes him a few pages). --Akhilleus (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your example is a better parallel. First, Chaucer's not mixed up with myths of divinity (and lived over 1,000 years later). Second, Chaucer actually authored a primary text. Third, more than one person has offered variations on the JC/JN myth scenario. Fourth, there are a number of people who have found the JM idea significant enough to respond to the claim (just like ABC). Fifth, (just like ABC) none of this argues against giving the subject encyclopedic treatment. The first section of my structure provides some historical context of the subject (Jesus), the second section provides historical context for the origins of the arguments (that his divinity or historical person are myths. The third section discusses theological research, the fourth historical. The fifth section gets into the various theories directly. I've even pointed out where the current criticisms could go in different contextualized sections. I guess I'm not understanding the purpose of your comparison. I mentioned ABC as an example of how to treat certain concepts academically.

As far as the summary, I'm not crazy about it either, but it's more inclusive. You don't seem particularly happy with it as it is judging by the discussion under "myth". So perhaps you could improve upon my suggestion or contribute one of your own? Phyesalis (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I have not read Van Voorst; I'm reading Grant right now. But I was thinking in terms of a book length treatment along the lines of The Historicity of Jesus by S. J. Case written in 1912 as a response to Drews. No one seems to have done that sort of book recently.

Phyesalis, my example was deliberately more fringy than the JMH. The point of the analogy was to pick something I was pretty sure that you would find absurd to show how treatment of a fringe idea might not follow the pattern you observed in the case of the ABC hypothesis. While the specific claim about Chaucer may be unique to Edwin Johnson, his general hypothesis that most pre-modern history and literature was concocted by monks has a long history starting with the celebrated classical scholar Jean Hardouin in 1696.

I'm not convinced that there are myths of divinity in the NT, except possibly in 2 Peter which was probably written in the mid 2nd century and postdates the rest of the NT by quite a bit. I am presently persuaded that the dominant conception of Jesus' nature in the NT is Adam christology. So I'm in the rather interesting position of having a rather clear idea what the central myth of the NT is, having what seem to me to be pretty good reasons for believing that this was what was intended by the writers, and finding that the so-called mythicists have a completely alien conception of the central myth. The odd thing is that few of the so-called mythicists actually appear to me to believe the myth that they claim is at the origin of Christianity. (They believe that the early Christians believed such things, but rarely seem to have adopted these beliefs as their own.)

As far as the historians vs theologians question goes - It seems to me that there is actually a pretty good consensus among historians for a very Jewish Jesus, Schweitzer style thoroughgoing eschatology, and some reasonable relationship between the synoptic gospels and history. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus among the modernist theologians except that many seem to think the gospels are further removed from history than most of the historians do. It seems strange to me that Grant, who really does appear to be an atheist or at least agnostic, takes the gospels at far closer to face value than many theologians.

As far as improving the article goes, you are probably in a better position than I am to explain what the arguments are, especially since you seem to have done quite a bit of thinking about Drews. If you could add a good clear description of Drews' ideas, without it becoming an argumentative essay, I think that would be great. A clearer explanation of Bruno Bauer would be great too. I only know of Bruno Bauer through reading Schweitzer. I don't think the liberal theologians who do not actually subscribe to JMH really belong here, but they would make a lot of sense at the Historicity of Jesus article because they did have a lot to say about how much of the story is historical or the general impossibility of knowing how much was historical. I think this article should really be confined to the outright denial of historicity, or it won't be clearly distinct from the general historicity article. I will try to think of ways to improve the article. Peterdgi (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

I remvoed the entire section on the Gospel of Barnabas as (a) it was listed as a "specific argument" of the Jesus myth hypothesis which it clearly is not (since it's presupposes the historical existence of Jesus), and (b) even if it were moved to a more appropriate section, it wouldn't be relevant to this Jesus myth hypothesis. At best, it might belong in the See Also section, but even that is dubious. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

well, it simply provides another "less-extreme" variant.

here:

Gospel of Barnabas - variation of the hypothesis

Main article: Gospel of Barnabas#Jesus not God or Son of God

According to the Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus foresaw and rejected his own deification. Though not included in the bible, the gospel suggests the existence of Jesus, but does not support Jesus as the Son of God. Also, this confirm Muslim belief, stating that Jesus is a human and a prophet, a servant of god, but not a deity.

"I confess before heaven, and call to witness everything that dwells upon the earth, that I am a stranger to all that men have said of me, to wit, that I am more than man. For I am a man, born of a woman, subject to the judgment of God; that live here like as other men, subject to the common miseries" ([1]:1)

Jesus also said in regard to the false opinions:

Then Jesus said: "With your words I am not consoled, because where you hope for light darkness shall come; but my consolation is in the coming of the Messenger, who shall destroy every false opinion of me, and his faith shall spread and shall take hold of the whole world, for so has God promised to Abraham our father." ([2]:1)

Suggesting a weak link to the Book of Revelation, without providing clues of the Tribulation, or any other supernatural events.

Iulian28ti 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not less extreme at all, it's diametrically opposed to the hypothesis. I'm an atheist who believes that Jesus existed and that the Jesus myth hypothesis is false. The Jesus myth hypothesis (as the rest of the article points out) is that there was no single person as represented by the Gospels. The Gospel of Barnabas contradicts the hypothesis, it does not support it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

let me present you some keywords to you: -neutrality -contradiction -variation -link snake -accessibility -censorship

Now carefully read and think before you say something!

Neutrality/NPOV -> take into account all available information, present all facts. you editors always seem to jump over that

Contradiction -> it is part of the neutrality. if you present only one fact you cannot be considered neutral.

Variation -> this "contradiction" is a ramification of the theory. it has nothing to do with the rest of the article. a new article could be created, but there is already a section about this very tiny variant. the Section i added is only a brief description.

Link snake -> People want to see the information, not to browse endless links. the page isn't too big so the variation isn't clutter.

Accessibility -> making link snakes is like putting books behind books in a big bookcase, so the reader will easily miss the books in the back

Censorship -> the use of TW simply suggests you are hunting the page, hunting changes made to it.

Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Wikipedia maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more.

so if you add verifiable information, it's considered vandalism. this is disappointing for a "standard following organization" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read all that carefully, and you made at least one bad assumption (censorship). I do use TW to hunt vandalism, but once it's installed, it's a convenient way of reverting anything. Now, to address your other issues: NPOV, contradiction, and variation all addressed by WP:WEIGHT. To the degree that this hypothesis is to be contradicted (and it already is), the "regular" gospels should be given more weight than this one particular gospel. Even if you don't want to use Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, there are so many other gospels out there, why choose Barnabas? Why not the Gospel of Judas, for example? As for link snake and accessibility, those don't really make sense. If a topic doesn't belong (due to its weight or lack of relevance), then the link snake or accessibility arguments are irrelevant. So, let me ask the one simple question, why is the Gospel of Barnabas more relevant to the Jesus myth hypothesis than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, Judas, the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, the Ebionites, the Egyptians, the Twelve, the Seventy, Cerinthus, Basilides, Marcion, Appelles, Bardesanes, Mani, Peter, Bartholomew, Nicodemus, Thomas, Matthias, Eve, or the few others I've omitted? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

it is irrelevant whether a text is canonical, or called "gospel": the real question is, how is it dated. All these Gnostic and pseudoepigraphical gospels, Judas, Barnabas etc., date to well after AD 200 and thus hold nothing of interest to this question whatsoever. Otoh, any first century text is of prime importance, regardless of its canonicity. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism v. Scholarly criticism

"Mainstream Scholarly response" is inaccurate and heavy POV. I changed it to "Criticism" per request. I see that somebody changed "Criticism" to "Scholarly Criticism" as the original request sugggested. I find the addition of the word scholarly to be redundant and POV, not to mention UW. Also, this thing about the majority of scholars is clearly POV. There are numbers of actual historians and theologians (although not as many in the theo camp)who either support the theory completely or remain skeptical of the prohistorical position/methodology. Donald Akenson (award winning historian) comes to mind. Phyesalis 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think criticism is ambiguous. I think the "scholarly" aspect of "scholarly response" is made clear both by the scholastic nature of the article and the nature of Wikipedia article expectations. Also "response" suggests one unified position, which is generally unheard of in the diversity of scademic discourse. I think "Criticism" is a neutral way to introduce the opposing point of view. I think it should be changed back to "criticism" to avoid the implication that this is not a valid scholarly position. As a compromise, I would accept "Theological Criticisms" if "Criticisms" is found to be too ambiguous. Phyesalis 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Theologocial criticisms" suggest that the criticisms are theologically based and not based on scholarly research. I would prefer "criticism" under the understanding that we're referring to the scholarly type of criticism to "theological criticism". As with my other comment. This might be better discussed in the straw poll section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See the straw poll above where I give my reasoning for preferring "scholarly criticism" to simply "criticism" (it's more precise). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. I will continue my response up there. Phyesalis 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to respond up there. TJ 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fringe?

Akhilleus asked on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Jesus_myth_hypothesis for input from outside parties. My twopence: the subject is controversial, and I do not think that citations from books published by Eerdmans can decide the issue. In the 19th century there was severe doubt among many theologians. The "Radikalkritik" also doubted Paul's existence. Since then two things have happened: some early New Testament snippets have been discovered, and the doubters have left the field. I suspect that the second reason is the most important one for the diminished support of myth hypotheses in academic circles. /Pieter Kuiper 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to the Burridge/Gould quote, but there are also quotes from Michael Grant (a classical historian), Van Voorst, and a quote from Earl Doherty (one of the proponents of the theory), all saying that this theory has no support within academia. That's a good indication that it's a fringe theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The references at the end of the lead (Grant and Burridge/Gould) are produced to say that it is fringe not to believe in an historical Jesus. Well, the Dutch classical historian Henk Versnel says in this interview (where he dismisses Francesco Carotta out of hand) that the consensus is that there is no consensus. That is not completely true, but the scholars who say that every reputable scholar agrees that Jesus existed are very often Christians. /Pieter Kuiper 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the question holds only so much interest for historians with no ideological motivation. So I think the communis opinio is something like "yeah, it's likely, nothing speaks against it, but who knows. now let's talk about something interesting." I mean, the historical Jesus will turn out to have been just some bloke. The "resurrected" Jesus of Christian doctrine holds infinitely more interest than another random wandering rabbi. dab (𒁳) 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest the following: actively making the argument that Jesus did not exist is clearly, at this point, a fringe position. On the other hand, one can express uncertainty on the question, as Dab says, without being on the fringe. So I wouldn't say that "every reputable scholar agrees that Jesus existed." I would rather say "No reputable scholar is willing to make a substantive argument that Jesus did not exist." john k 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

that sums it up perfectly. dab (𒁳) 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't pretend to understand the debate. The evidence of historicity seems compelling to me as a clueless dilettante dabbler in things early medieval, just as it will probably seem feeble to a keen atheist teenage student of science. It depends what kind of proof you expect. Anyway, surely this belongs in Historical Jesus? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, there's enough substance here to justify its own article. And we don't have to decide whether or not the Jesus myth theory is true--all we're discussing here is whether the theory is a major part of the discussion of the historical Jesus, or just a fringy sidecurrent. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

that goes without saying. As it happens, it is a fringy side-current and hence should be presented as such. I fail to see why the "atheist teenage student of science" should tend to embrace it, since the same person probably won't convert to Islam because he thinks Muhammad is historical, or to Scientology because he thinks Ron L. Hubbard really lived. The historicity of Jesus is completely unrelated (orthogonal) to acceptance or rejection of Christian tenets of faith. Things may lie different with the historicity of the actual resurrection of Christ, but this isn't under discussion here. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find Richard Carrier on youtube saying "Probably not" to the question of whether Jesus existed. You can find Robert M Price saying the onus of proof has shifted to the those who believe Jesus existed. I think they are serious scholras. E4mmacro 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are. However, you havve only pointed toward two scholars who contest the point. The consensus view of the remainder of the scholars apparently disagrees with them, possibly strongly. Any argument which has only two major proponents in this field almost certainly qualifies as "fringe". John Carter 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Carrier's a grad student at Columbia who's self-published on the web, or else been published by publications having nothing to do with his field of expertise. I'm not sure he qualifies as part of "academia" for the purposes of this debate. john k 20:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. My understanding is that this is a secondary article of Jesus and comparative mythology with an emphasis on literary criticism, and that it does not belong in historicity of Jesus which focuses on theologically based biblical scholarship and biblical criticism. A search on Bultmann brings up over 350 references in JSTOR from 2003-1980. Bultmann is not "fringe". His impact is still felt and discussed today. This article's subject, while being a gross conflation of complex positions throughout several disciplines, is notable as the product of the first quest for the historical Jesus, coming out out of new Post-Enlightenment humanist thought on science, history, culture and religion. The skepticism of Jesus' historical existence also marks a significant point at which secular scholarship gains independence from Church influence. The origin of this particular debate was one of the foundational elements in the development of historiography. Phyesalis 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bultmann certainly isn't fringe, but I don't think he has very much to do with the subject of this article. The problem, here, as it has been with many previous disputes in this article, may be with the meaning of "mythology". When Bultmann and other theologians talk about demythologizing the NT, they are talking about mythology as a way of conceptualizing the world--a mode of thought. But when we talk about the "Jesus myth", we're using "myth" in the sense of "false story". Bultmann isn't one of the people who denies Jesus' historicity, as far as I can see. And the people who are claiming that the gospels are fabrications and that Jesus never existed as a real person are definitely in the minority of biblical scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What definition of myth is used here?

It doesn't seem like this article is using the academic definition of "myth". The term "myth" has often been equated to a false story in popular usage, but this is not the academic definition of myth. Myths can be based on real people and therefore even if Jesus lived, it doesn't change the fact that the story of Jesus is mythological. Same with the Illiad......while the Illiad is considered "mythology".....it is still based on events that occured in the past such as the seige of a state referred later on as Troy. The definition of the term "myth" is; "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." None of this definition has anything to do with being a historical figure or not. And the Jesus story fits this definition. Zachorious (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but no one has managed to come up with a better name for the article. If you can come up with a way to say "article about the hypothesis that Jesus was not historical" that works as a title, please post your suggestion. Peterdgi (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Zachorious is right. There are various myths attached to people who we know beyond any doubt existed. George Washington and the cherry tree is a well known example as are the various myths associated with Davy Crocket, Jesse James, Wild Bill Hickok, and many others of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps "non-historical Jesus hypothesis" as an alternative title might better separate this from "The mythologization of Jesus hypothesis" where Jesus is thought to be historical but many of his deeds were embellished on for decades or even centuries after his death.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral

Very odd article. Seems to be almost entirely a criticism of the Jesus Myth. While a criticism section should exist, it seems to be the point of the article. Definitely not NPOV.

I would like to do some major editing. Obviously keeping the criticism, but moving it to a criticism section and adding some more about the supposed point of the article – the Jesus Myth. Any objections?~~shambles07~~ 25 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.116.168 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

---

DEFINATELY not neutral. Suetonius (considering Chrestus is by far likelier to mean Greek by the name then misspelling of christ,) Tacitus, Pliny and Trajan are claimed misleadingly to mention Jesus. They do not. They mention christianity/christians. And no-one in his right mind is questioning the existance of christianity, but that of christ! When I tried to insert mention of this it was removed within an hour. Neutral article hardly would have reason to mention the four worthies at all, much less: "Of the few references (to Christ) outside of Christian documents:..." It is said that: "Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the accuracy of one or more of these sources." but no mention is made (nor allowed by some editors) as to the very simple GROUNDS of this "disputing." Perhaps this is such emotional issue for some that neutral viewing of it is impossible. ---- Janne Harju —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.83 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer

Disclaimer - I only know of Bruno Bauer's work through secondary sources : Schweitzer, Engels and a few reference works. Bauer's works on the gospels do not appear to have been translated into English. Schweitzer devotes a whole chapter to him in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus, so I think I probably have a fair picture.

The article as it now stands seems to tie Bauer strongly into the comparative mythology angle. This does not appear to be true. I haven't seen anything on Bauer showing his ideas on life-death-rebirth deities. Unless someone provides information on Bauer's interest in comparitive mythology, I will try to edit out the suggestion that Bauer has anything to do with the comparitive mythology aspect of the JMH.

Bauer approached the issue from the side of literary criticism. He showed that the other gospels depend on Mark. He decided that Mark was a work of fiction based on many difficulties he found that were involved in taking it as a history. But he based his decision to regard Mark as fiction primarily on his belief that there had been no general Jewish Messianic expectations at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. He argued that if there had been a prevailing messianic expectation among the Jews at the time, then Mark could not be fiction because Mark's Jesus fulfilled these expectations so badly. Bauer could find no evidence outside the New Testament that Jews had been expecting a Messiah before the rise of Christianity.

Bruno Bauer's explanation of the Messianic Secret in Mark is "The earliest Evangelist did not venture openly to carry back into the history the idea that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, because he was aware that in the time of Jesus no general expectation of the Messiah had prevailed among the people. When the disciples in Mark viii, 28 report the opinions of the people concerning Jesus they cannot mention any who hold Him to be the Messiah." (quoted in Schweitzer The Quest for the Historical Jesus chapter 11 p.142)

Albert Schweitzer had a very favorable estimate of Bauer's importance in historical Jesus research. He said, "But the time is past for pronouncing judgment upon Lives of Christ on the ground of the solutions which they offer. For us the great men are not those who solved the problems, but those who discovered them. Bauer's "Criticism of the Gospel History" is worth a good dozen Lives of Jesus, because his work, as we are only now coming to recognise, after half a century, is the ablest and most complete collection of the difficulties of the Life of Jesus which is anywhere to be found." (Quest p. 159)

I'm pretty new at this and I don't think I'm ready to do any major editing yet, but I do think that we should clarify that Bruno Bauer's work is based on literary criticism and seems to have nothing to do with comparative mythology. Peterdgi (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The thing about Bauer, indeed almost all of the Liberal Theology angle, is that it was in response to proto-comparative religion study that identified the presence of myth in the NT. This is one of the primary stimuli behind the various quests. They wanted to root out mythic and/or inauthentic elements (among other things). I'm not saying that Bauer formulated a life-death-rebirth myth typology, but his work and conclusions (that virtually no knowledge is possible) serve as a basis for modern theories. The article wouldn't be complete without covering this era of theological/philosophical/historical development. Please don't remove it. Phyesalis (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer absolutely belongs in the article. But the way the article is currently written suggests that he was interested in the comparitive mythology side, when in fact he was interested in the higher criticism side. The first paragraph of the article stresses the rebirth-deities angle. The second paragraph leads straight into Bruno Bauer. I think a reader might be misled into thinking that Bruno Bauer was interested in rebirth deities. There is no mention of this in what I have read from either Albert Schweitzer or Friedrich Engels.Peterdgi (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read Bauer either, but my impression is similiar to Peterdgi's--Bauer was concerned with "myth" in a way that was common to 19th century Liberal Theology, but that has very little to do with comparative mythology. As I understand it, it's the difference between the supernatural (i.e., "mythical") content of the Gospels and the historical content. I think this points to a larger problem that has plagued discussion on this page for years--there are many different senses of "myth" and "mythology" in play here, not everyone means the same thing by them, and often people are talking past each other because of that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "myth" only appears twice in chapter 11 of Schweitzer's Quest. In both cases it is used in reference to David Strauss and not Bruno Bauer. Bauer doesn't simply separate the supernatural from the realistic content - he decides that it is all fiction. Eventually he came to the position that Paul did not exist either. Oddly enough, there is a proper name for the hypothesis that Paul never existed, it is called Radical Criticism.

I think somehow that there may be some confusion between Bruno Bauer and F. C. Baur. They are completely different people. Bruno Bauer is the one who thought that Jesus was fictional. F. C. Baur didn't think anything of the sort, though he did do some fairly extreme work in higher criticism. Both were Hegelians, both German, both wrote biblical criticism and had similar last names, but they were completely different people.Peterdgi (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Maybe we all need to stop commenting and go read Bauer instead. (First I need to work on my German, though...) --Akhilleus (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I wasn't sure on that. I wasn't confusing the two. I know he thought there was no historical value in the Gospels as far as attempts to reconstruct, but I'm not sure whether or not he actually doubted his existence. Deciding that the New testament is all fiction is not an explicit denial of historicity. Does anyone have a quote on that? Whether or not Schweitzer used myth in connection with Bauer, he certainly equated Bauer with Strauss since he thinks Bauer is of greater value. Phyesalis (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert M Price quote

I am unhappy about including Price's objections on 2 grounds: 1) they're self-published cf WP:SPS and 2) his conclusion is not that Jesus didn't exist, just that he thinks we can't find the 'real' Jesus in the material available to us. A rather different conclusion I think. Mercury543210 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Price has a spectrum of positions. He has made arguments that the burden of proof is on positivists and that Jesus did not exist. (I am somewhat familiar with his more recent views, but he isn't really one of my interests). As for SPS, I'm not sure, he is a noted scholar who has been published extensively in peer-review journals. It's not like he's just some random guy who set up his own homepage. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not 'familiar' with Price's work, anyone who has a 'spectrum of positions' doesn't come across as very authoritative. Which of his 'positions' are we quoting here? Is it his 'current' position? I still think remove the quote. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's the no-Jesus position. As for being able to argue multiple points of an issue as some kind of disqualification - I hardly think so. Actually, not being tied to a particular ideological presupposition is usually the sign of reliable expertise. When I said that Price had a spectrum of positions, it seems as if he has made a series of shifts in his thinking. His spectrum of positions are pretty linear in development. Conversely, how many peer-review articles have authors like Van Voorst and Grant published? I mean let's establish one thing - The van Voorst and the Grant quotes are not published in peer-review material - they are, in effect, popular books, not academic. van Voorst's book was not reviewed in any journal I've been able to find. So before we start casting aspersions on peer-reviewed authors let us consider the weight of the material against it. Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies. I haven't gotten to B&G yet (it's that time of year). This article seems to have a particular pro-evidentialist apologetics bias to it based on materials with undue weight. Phyesalis (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Circular or not

The entry states that most "ideas" covered by the term "share the common premise that the narrative of the Gospels portrays a figure who never actually existed", yet it also suggests they conclude "that there was no historical Jesus". Hence, either the Jesus myth argument is circular, or the entry is misleading... Terjen (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it isn't circular since there are actually subtle, yet relevant, distinctions. One can argue that the Gospels only portray Jesus Christ as they are post-Easter narratives (composed after authors had accepted the divinity of the risen Christ) and therefore do not portray a historical figure. This is a mythical view of JC (this where there is some overlap between comparative religion and more explicit Jesus myth arguments. The idea that Jesus Christ is a myth is a cultural and academic precursor to the idea that Jesus of Nazareth (historical) is a myth. There's a lot of grey area between those two positions. Both are relevant to this page. Phyesalis (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Both are relevant to this page, yes, but this page is actually *about* the latter. That's a significant part, to my mind, of the justification of the split between this and the other article on Jesus and mythology. TJ (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"... in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John ..." - Gnostic, not Christian view?

Anyone know if this true? I think this is a Gnostic view and not, as far as I know, a 'Christian' one. If so I think this whole section needs to be deleted as you can't argue for a 'parallel' where there isn't one. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the following: In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast (a religious epithet written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST) - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John, who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser.' As it is not a parallel! Mercury543210 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this not a parallel? It looks like a parallel to me. Horus is to Christ, as Anubis is to John the Baptist. --Skylights76 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Horus was anointed in the same way that a king was anointed, by Anubis, who served as an intercessor between the gods and man. There is no evidence that John the Baptist was seen as serving in the same capacity, so the comparison collapses there, I think. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are all the "scholars" priests and reverends?

The people in the "scholarly response" section are almost all reverends, pastors or Christian scholars. Doesn't that make for a conflict of interest in their view that the idea of Jesus being a "myth" is completely "refuted," and that they can't think of any "respectable" scholars who hold the view today?

Aren't there many historians and scholars who're also atheists? 69.220.2.188 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Four sources are cited stating that JMers are a minority in scholarly circles today (1 - Burridge and Gould, 2 - Van voorst, 3 - Grant, 4 - Dogherty). Two of them were written by Christians. The other two were written by non-Christians. One was by Grant - an atheist - and Doherty - a JM proponent, who may or may not be an atheist (I don't know if he is a deist or posesses some other kind of belief in a deity), but is certainly NOT a Christian.

As for suggesting that committed Christians are somehow extra conflicted, anyone who has studied the subject in depth has a level of emotional commitment to it. TJ (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon poster... The statement that they make is the type of comment that one uses to silence one's opponents. The fact that there is "a level of emotional commitment" only increases the likelihood that they are speaking emotionally rather than academically. This is also the type of subject where such broad sweeping statements such as this would be found.Balloonman (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

how is Michael Grant a "reverend"? It isn't even necessary to "silence your opponents" when your opponents don't have a case. For some reason, the "scholarly response" section appears to be mostly about proponents claiming that scholarly refutation doesn't convince them (duh, otherwise they'd hardly qualify as "proponents"). As it turns out, there is one (1) academic proponent (Price), if you count the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" as academia. If you do not, we have zero (0) academic proponents: utter WP:FRINGE. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Evidentialist apologetics requires that the theologian prove Jesus' existence as the entire basis of their religion's legitimacy. Let's be real - that's one of the main reasons there is a distinction between academics and theologians. Theologians start from the assumption/presupposition that Hayzeus existed, academics tend to let the contentious issue slide - this is why a number of academics do not refer to Jesus but "the Jesus event". Burridge and Gould's statement that they don't know of any reputable scholar probably serves to highlight their limited field of theology - not general academic discourse. Phyesalis (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also because, with the mindset of academic society, trying to argue academically that the miracles actually happened would get you laughed out of your career. However, I will also say that theologians wouldn't be very likely to try to be dishonest in their arguments - if they knew they had to be dishonest to make their case, they wouldn't believe, would they?

"Limited field of theology" - do you know of any reputable scholars who support the hypothesis? Even according to the article, only two real scholars defend it, and from what I've seen, not well - Doherty, for example, has at least once claimed that Paul believed in some kind of subheaven where he thought Jesus happened because the culture did, and then when presented with the evidence that the culture did not, he put forth that just Paul did. While he may be a good scholar in other subjects, in this one he is grasping.

But I'll shut up now, sorry for rambling.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was poorly phrased. I meant "limited to their field of theology". It's not a question of honesty - but of presupposition. They assume that Jesus existed and search (through that lens) for proof. They assume that the Gospels are legitimate sources which contain legitimate info. This doesn't make them dishonest. It's all logically consistent with their beliefs, it just doesn't make for good objective inquiry (outside of Christian theology). Phyesalis (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's edit

Bruce added, more than once, a paragraph sourced to http://jdstone.org/, defending it on the basis that it's a ".org site". No. It abjectly fails WP:RS. It could be .va and still be worthless as a source, the site has no identifiable authority, it's a polemical anti-Christian site and if we can't source that content from a much better authority then we're not going o include it period. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And Guy KEEPS GakuseiDon's Pro-Jesus stuff despite it being self-published MyZoo web site. Guy just destroyed his credibility.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, in that case remove GakuseiDon's Pro-Jesus stuff then - anything on those kinds of sites (whether this self-published pro-Jesus site, or jdstone.org, or infidels.org.) Just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.

And please don't make rude and unnecessary comments about other users. TJ (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As per this discussion I have removed the sentence about Hayyim ben Yehoshua's article. This is not a credible source WP:SPS. Mercury543210 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)