Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Christ myth theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Typically modern proponents only debate sources from within one hundred years of Jesus' death, since sources after that time as Bart Ehrman notes, "almost certainly cannot be considered independent and reliable witnesses,"
— User:96.29.176.92 2016-04-14T11:50:24

First, Ehrman argues in favor of Jesus' historicity. Second, Christ myth theories include comparisons to ancient sources which are not only within this 0–150CE timeframe but predate it. A longer quote is found in this blog but not visible in Google preview: "I start with a brief survey of sources that are typically appealed to as non-Christian references to Jesus. I will restrict myself to sources that were produced within about a hundred years..."

In regards to critiquing reliable sources, Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier note, "Historians must thus always consider the conditions under which a source was produced—the intentions that motivated it—but they must not assume that such knowledge tells them all they need to know about its "reliability." They must also consider the historical context in which it was produced—the events that preceded it, and those that followed."[1]
— User:96.29.176.92 2016-04-14T11:50:24

Howell and Prevenier do not discuss myth theories. This is more about describing an aspect of a criteria of authenticity or about approaching a work.

The quote in the quote field of cite is:

Historians must thus always consider the conditions under which a source was produced—the intentions that motivated it—but they must not assume that such knowledge tells them all they need to know about its "reliability." They must also consider the historical context in which it was produced—the events that preceded it, and those that followed.[2]
— User:96.29.176.92 2016-04-14T11:50:24

Howell and Prevenier do not discuss myth theories.

Works pointed to are:

These sources usually include the Pauline Epistles, the Canonical Gospels, and various extra-biblical references to Jesus.
— User:96.29.176.92 2016-04-14T11:50:24

Which ancient sources are used to support which Christ myth theories? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I made some clarifications, however the Ehrman quote is correct as is. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@96.29.176.92: you added that "Some modern proponents [Carrier, Doherty, and Price] will only debate sources from within one hundred years of Jesus' death". The sentence implies a genetic fallacy, i.e. rejection because of source. If so, that is a relevance fallacy. Moreover, describing the scope of what they debate is not the same as describing the scope of what they write. You are inferring a connection. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with BoBoMisiu. The problem is that one single IP has imposed its view on the whole article and changed it radically. This has taken place without any discussion or consensus. Sure, the IP discusses but then goes on editing the article regardless, introducing a large piece of WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY. As BabyJonas point out, Thompson (who has been soundly rejected in his own field by modern archeology) is paraded here as an authority despite not even being in the field. Quotes from Ehrman, who forcefully rejects the CMT, are cherrypicked to seemingly support it, as BoBoMisiu points out. I would strongly recommend going back to the previous version by Ian.thomson two weeks ago [3], or even better, the version from February 22 [4] as virtually everything since that date is one single IP unilaterally changing the article to conform to a certain POV. Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

BoBoMisiu, how about this ?

Modern proponents, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price do not argue to refute sources that are dated after one hundred years of Jesus’ death, they do argue to refute the sources of the Canonical Gospels, and various extra-biblical references to Jesus, and they also argue that the Pauline Epistles supports Christ myth theory.

In regards to the general critiquing of reliable sources using historical methods, Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier note, "Historians must thus always consider the conditions under which a source was produced—the intentions that motivated it—but they must not assume that such knowledge tells them all they need to know about its “reliability.” They must also consider the historical context in which it was produced—the events that preceded it, and those that followed." 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@96.29.176.92: Howell and Prevenier is about methods which neither supports nor refutes anything mythical. The creation of various Christ myth theories should be presented, e.g. describe how "the Pauline Epistles supports Christ myth theory". Myths have histories and oral traditions, present the affirmative of some the myth theories. Price speculated, in several episodes of his podcast, about legends and myths potentially developed around a historical Jesus – which is not a purely mythical theory. This article should be different than a historicity of Jesus article or a Biblical historical method article. Carrier said during an interview that: "the basic hypothesis ... minimal historicity ... that Jesus was an ordinary person ... I would say all secular scholars agree that that has to be the truth ... the competing view, there are at least seven of us, ..."at podcast time=47:30 –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that how proponents argues that the Pauline Epistles supports Christ myth theory should have a section in this article and yes Carrier did correctly state that his "myth" viewpoint was WP:FRINGE as compared to minimal historicity, however this is the appropriate ancillary article for this topic. The Howell and Prevenier quote seems neutral to me and defines what issues a scholarly debate should take into consideration. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@96.29.176.92: I agree it is the correct article on the subject, Christ myth theories, and it is WP:FRINGE. Carrier described the scholarly consensus – it is nowhere close to a debate. Yes, "Howell and Prevenier quote seems neutral" because they have not written on Christ myth theories but about methods. Do Carrier, Doherty, Price, etc. mention Howell and Prevenier in their Christ myth theories? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Howell and Prevenier being noted by Carrier, Doherty, Price, etc. I do not know. However, I do think it is important to note scholarly historical methodology, else some may think this is pushing a conspiracy theory. We can quote Lataster, pp.65-66

There are no primary sources (contemporary and eyewitness sources) for the life of the historical Jesus. [Martha C. Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), pp. 17-20.] Primary sources are vital to historians, not only as they provide direct evidence, but also serve as the benchmark by which secondary sources are measured.[Leopold von Ranke, Sarah Austin, and Robert Arthur Johnson, History of the Reformation in Germany (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1905), pxi.; Louis Reichenthal Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method (New York: Knopf, 1950), p. 165.] Unfortunately, biblical scholars do not have access to primary sources, arguably rendering all of their conclusions about the historical Jesus as susceptible to doubt.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point of quoting Howell and Prevenier in this article. This is a textbook on historical research, suitable for undergraduate methods courses and possibly first-year graduate courses in historical method. But that's not the subject of this article. The statement quoted is bland and unexceptional, and similar statements could be found in many works on historiography. That Lataster feels he needs to cite and quote a textbook for what is essentially conventional wisdom is a mark of amateurishness—this article doesn't need to repeat his mistake. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Modern proponents, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price argue that the Pauline Epistles confirms Christ myth theory.

Who wants to write up their argument ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have specific references for this statement? Wdford (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And, maybe, a bit clearer statement to indicate specifically what you want added to the article, like, perhaps, the specific wording to be used? John Carter (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity for Carrier and Doherty, and I incorrectly noted Price when I meant Thomas Verena. Price just argues possible Pagan Parallels to Christ which is not the same, my mistake. Please disregard my noting Price and I do not propose noting Verena in regards to the Pauline Epistles and CMT.

I suggest that a summary of the main points from Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity would be a good starting point for how the Pauline Epistles confirms Christ myth theory, but I will not write it myself, BoBoMisiu seems interested in this topic ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, it might be possible to see if the book mentioned has enough content and notability to merit a separate article. There would presumably be much fewer problems regarding WEIGHT and other considerations in such an article, and it could be linked to by any number of other articles. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity" is a review of Doherty's book by Richard Carrier, posted on the web. Neither it nor Doherty's book needs to have a separate article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@96.29.176.92: no, I am not interested in writing about Christ myth theories in Paul. I was pointing out unsupported content in a paragraph that I think should be removed. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The section on the Radical Dutch school includes the following text: "In addition to the authors listed on this page, early Christ myth proponents included Swiss skeptic Rudolf Steck, English historian Edwin Johnson, English radical Rev. Robert Taylor and his associate Richard Carlile." Do these people have anything to do with the Dutch school or is this section misplaced? Dimadick (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it would seem that section is misplaced and should be moved. Jeppiz (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the stable version of the article, before the POV pushing IP completely changed it to propagate a fringe view. We have certain policies here, such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SYNTH, all of which have been systematically violated. Of course we can discuss whichever changes we want, but that's how it should work - a discussion between users reaching a consensus. What we've had here is instead one single cherry-picking WP:SPA who has been pushing its pet conspiracy theory, including phasing out academic experts in the field and instead cherry-picking obscure sources. Jeppiz (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this was the right move. The IP editor should thoroughly discuss any changes before making more, because the changes s/he made before were not an improvement. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Please cite the multiple examples of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SYNTH, all of which you claim are violated and extant in the edits you RVed. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to repeat what several users have pointed out to you already. As for the article, several users already thanked me for restoring it. As Akhilleus said, you really need to start discussing changes, as opposed to just doing as you want regardless of discussions. Jeppiz (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Table comparing RVed edits and current edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RVed Current 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Different proponents espouse slightly different versions of the Christ myth theory, but many proponents of the theory use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value.[1][2][3] that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus dating back to the first century.[4][5] that Jesus originated from pagan or mythical roots.[6][7] Different proponents espouse slightly different versions of the Christ myth theory, but many proponents of the theory use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century: that the New Testament has no historical value that there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century that Christianity had pagan or mythical roots. References ^ Thompson, Thomas L. (20 April 2009). "Historicizing the Figure of Jesus, the Messiah". The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Basic Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-7867-3911-0. The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of a historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified. ^ Lataster, Raphael (2015). "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources". The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 6:1: 68. Scholar of religion James Tabor (University of North Carolina) also notes Paul's spurious sources: "This mean the essentials of the message Paul preaches are not coming from those who were with Jesus, whom Paul sarcastically calls the "so-called pillars of the church," adding "what they are means nothing to me" (Galatians 2:6), but from voices, visions, and revelations that Paul is "hearing" and "seeing." For some that is a strong foundation. For many, including most historians, such "traditions" cannot be taken as reliable historical testimony."(James Tabor, "Paul as Clairvoyant," accessed 21/09/2012, http://jamestabor.com/2012/05/23/paul-as-clairvoyant-2). {{cite journal}}: External link in |quote= (help) ^ Lüdemann, Gerd (2010). "Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus". In R. Joseph Hoffmann (ed.). Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth. Prometheus Books. p. 212. ISBN 978-1-61614-189-9. In short, Paul cannot be considered a reliable witness to either the teachings, the life, or the historical existence of Jesus. ^ Lataster, Raphael (November 12, 2015). "Afterword by Richard Carrier". Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists. p. 418. ISBN 1514814420. [T]here is no independent evidence of Jesus's existence outside the New Testament. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn't), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives. ^ Lataster, Raphael (December 14, 2014). "Weighing up the evidence for the 'Historical Jesus'". The Conversation. The Conversation (website). There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus' life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. ^ Voorst, Robert Van (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-8028-4368-5. Bauer laid down the typical threefold argument that almost all subsequent deniers of the existence of Jesus were to follow (although not in direct dependence upon him). First, he denied the value of the New Testament, especially the Gospels and Paul's letters, in establishing the existence of Jesus. Second, he argued that the lack of mention of Jesus in non-Christian writings of the first century shows that Jesus did not exist. Neither do the few mentions of Jesus by Roman writers in the early second century establish his existence. Third, he promoted the view that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical at its beginnings. ^ Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield Phoenix Press Limited. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2. [T]he basic thesis of every competent mythologist, then and now, has always been that Jesus was originally a god just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), who was later historicized.

Jeppiz please explain your RV of WP:RS citations. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC) & Template:hab title correction 04:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC) & fix typo 04:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that Jeppiz has more than sufficiently explained his reasons for reverting these edits. However, here's another point that I'm not sure has been considered (I'm not going to read all of the discussion to check)--the text about the "three-fold argument" is based very closely on a passage from Van Voorst 2000, which is properly cited after the last item on the list. The IP's edits, which jam a bunch of additional citations throughout the text, change the passage so that it's no longer clear that it's all based on Van Voorst. For that reason alone I think the IP's edits are misguided; the fact that the IP is trying to present the views of fringe theorists as if they are authoritative and mainstream is of course an additional reason to oppose these edits. But let's say we were going to cite Lataster; if so, we should not add a citation to his work in the middle of a passage that's based on Van Voorst; rather, Lataster's view should be explained and cited in a new passage. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

IP, as Akhilleus said, this has been explained to you in long detail. The only two possibilities are that you intentionally refuse to WP:HEAR or that you really do not get it regardless of how often it's repeated. In either, we're far past the point where it's becoming disruptive. I have tried to explain to you, over and over again, and so have many other users. Time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

--Akhilleus, Jeppiz has given only unsubstantiated reasons for reverting these edits and in fact has ignored his own previous "Strong WP:NPOV violation" section on [Talk:Christ myth theory] to once again push his own version of WP:Truth, and actually no longer just himself as he notes his support by a cabal. The three-fold argument is not a Van Voorst quote, it is a summary of Bauer's arguments and the citations are correct for each of Bauer's arguments as they demonstrate how his view is supported by modern scholarship. Once again the WP:Fringe card is played to suppress valid edits based on WP:RS sources and citations within an actual WP:Fringe article such is this one. The RVed WP:RS citations are valid. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This last comment makes me think further discussion will be useless. Again, the text in the article about the "three-fold argument" is based very closely on a passage on p. 9 of Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament; anyone who bothers to read the cited source will easily see that this article draws upon Van Voorst. Inserting additional citations into the passage will make its attribution unclear. You basically say you're adding citations to illustrate how each point is supported by current writers—that's WP:SYNTH, as you're using these citations to make a point that isn't directly made in the cited sources. Again, if we're going to cite these sources, much better to do so in a passage that actually explains their own views. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So three new sections should be added to this article for the modern scholarship on:

• The absence of any reliable Jesus historicity support in the New Testament.
• The absence of any reliable non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century.
• The origination of Jesus from pagan or mythical roots. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Or rather, what mainstream academia thinks of those claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I mean WP:Fringe WP:RS experts noting the absence of any reliable Jesus historicity support in the New Testament. Given that this is a WP:Fringe article pertaining to that topic and as we do not push WP:Truth, please feel free to ref dissenting non WP:Fringe viewpoints of equal WP:Weight and additionally note its mainstream consensus. WP:Fringe is not a derogatory or prejudicial term that allows for the suppression of WP:RS in an actual WP:Fringe article for topics directly related to it. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

No, given that this is (even by your admission) a fringe topic, we base the article on sources that provide mainstream academia's assessment of said topic, only possibly using the fringe sources to provide examples or more fully describe claims already discussed by mainstream sources. We do not present the Shakespeare authorship question from the perspective of the anti-Stratfordians, but from mainstream academia's perspective. We do not present John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories from the perspective of any of their advocates (even any of the ones who reject tinfoil hat nuttery and are genuinely skeptical about minor details), but from the perspective of mainstream academia. Pushing for WP:THETRUTH would be insisting that we ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Point.1 Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources: Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Whereas you state, "sources that provide mainstream academia's assessment of said topic" which is misleading and not correct. Per independent sources that discuss the three topics noted in my claim, there is no shortage.
• Point.2 Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Quotations: This point is not germane. It is not a blanket prohibition, but rather calls for a case by case evaluation.
• Point.3 Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims: Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research should be described clearly within their own articles. This supports my claim.
• Point.4 Insisting that we ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter: This point is moot. I did not make that claim. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Independent sources would be the mainstream ones. The ones advocating the CMT are not independent. If mainstream sources did advocate the CMT or at least considered it a non-fringe alternative, then reputable CMT sources could be considered independent. The quotations section's relevance is in listing one of the few areas where citing a fringe source would be appropriate, in providing examples. The evaluating and describing claims section clearly says "In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence." I have to ask if you bothered to read it at all or if you just made up what you thought the title meant to support your desire to present this article as WP:THETRUTH. "Established lines of research" quite obviously means mainstream academia. "Neutral descriptions of other claims" does not mean that we give fringe theories artificial equality, it means that we simply summarize the mainstream academic perception of those ideas without commentary or emotion. And by suggesting that we start from the fringe perspective and are merely welcome to add the mainstream perspective as a counterpoint, you are indeed pushing for the article to downplay mainstream academia. Going from "Mainstream academia first with fringe sources as examples" to "fringe sources first with mainstream academia as counter-examples" is downplaying mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The following new sections should be added to the article per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims

• Ahistoricity of Jesus
  • The absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament.
  • The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century.
• Mythological Jesus 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia just summarizes sources. We don't write the article and then throw on sources after, we summarize the sources and that forms the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources this article is deficient in its coverage of many topics discussed in independent sources in regards CMT. Therefore it also fails to be compliant per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims and thus should reduced to a stub and rewritten. Surely you are joking when you claim that articles do not have thrown on sources after starting life as a stub. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources which advocate the theory are not independent. Having written, nominated for deletion, and even deleted more articles than you've probably even edited, I can tell you that yes, the goal is to merely summarize sources -- not to write what we want and look for sources later. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be claiming that there are no 'X' number of independent sources discussing CMT in regards to: The absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament, The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century and Mythological Jesus. What value do you assign to 'X' ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You misread me. We summarize mainstream academic sources. If they discuss those ideas, then we discuss them, and can further cite some fringe sources for examples. We don't say "this is what the article should say" and then look for sources for that. We go over the mainstream academic sources, summarize them, and expand from there based on further sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I am asserting that this article should summarize WP:Fringe expert academic sources that do discuss these topics. In this WP:Fringe article that also should (but not currently) include these topics since they are discussed in many independent sources. WP:Fringe policy clearly permits WP:Fringe expert academic sources in a WP:Fringe article, since WP does not push truth. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson are you knowledgeable enough on this subject to evaluate if this article should be reduced to a stub and then written using expert academic sources, per WP:Fringe policy. If not, can you find someone who is ?

Here are some brief summaries:

• Lataster, Raphael (2015). "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources". The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 6:1: 63.
• Lataster, Raphael (29 March 2016). "IT'S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE". Think. 15 (43): 65–79. doi:10.1017/s1477175616000117. Think, Volume 15, Issue 43, Summer 2016, Published online by Cambridge University Press

96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The article already cites expert academic sources—Van Voorst and Ehrman, to name two. There's no need to reduce this article to a stub, or indeed to make any radical changes. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources, this article is deficient in its coverage of many topics discussed in independent sources in regards CMT. Therefore it also fails to be compliant per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims and thus should reduced to a stub and rewritten. The topics discussed in many independent sources are the absence of Jesus historicity support in the New Testament, The absence of non-christian references to Jesus historicity from the first century and Mythological Jesus. Ian.thomson noted that articles should summarize expert academic sources. Whereas this article does not summarize any expert academic sources that write on the previously noted topics. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained for you, sources that advocate the CMT are not independent. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Independent sources or Wikipedia:Independent sources, please cite the section which notes that expert academic scholars writing on the previously noted topics in relation to CMT are not independent or why popular media such as magazines, blogs and other popular media discussing the scholarship, e.g. youtube videos featuring community gatherings to discuss the scholarship of said topics. Why are they not independent. Please note I said "discuss" as normal people usually do not, "advocate". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot honestly pretend that a source titled "It's official: (insert any position here)," or that a community that is gathered specifically to discuss and look for material supporting a particular position is independently describing a position instead of non-neutrally advocating it. Tertiary sources in the field independently establish what the mainstream academic consensus is, secondary sources that argue in favor of that academic consensus are used to further elaborate on what the mainstream academic consensus is, and then secondary sources that argue for the fringe position are used to provide examples. That's how we've handled things in articles relating to fringe claims.

Also, blogs and Youtube videos generally fail the WP:USERG portion of WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything Ian.thomson writes above, but it should also be noted that the two pieces by Lataster listed above did not appear in peer-reviewed journals, and do not qualify as "expert academic sources." --Akhilleus (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not true. "The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies is made available electronically through the Program in Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. In most other respects, however, it functions as a traditional scholarly journal. Submitted research articles, as well as discussions and critical notes, are subject to blind peer review. -- The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies University of Utah

Think is not a blunt though it is hosted via Cambridge University Press' Cambridge Journals Online site which at least puts it in the reliable category even if it isn't formally peer reviewed.--2606:A000:EA86:BD00:C84E:4552:1575:2EB1 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This article and the Historicity of Jesus articles are both a mess and do a lot of "scholar says X", while doing a pretty poor job of properly portraying the arguments for and against the historicity of Jesus. We repeatedly get citations of Jesus scholars who claim that the matter is settled/no one in the mainstream believes Christ was a myth, but both this article and the Historicity of Jesus article fail to delineate what, exactly, evidence that is based on.

Likewise, the arguments of the Jesus Myth proponents are mixed up into huge paragraphs, and the whole thing is organized in a very confused way; there's 21st century stuff in the 20th century section, and I'm not sure that organizing it by year makes sense. The whole thing feels rambley and unencyclopedic. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed issues too, looking at the article. How do you propose we go about resolving the issue? Two important question in this regard:

* Do we have a clear distinction between authoritative and non-authoritative scholarly sources?

* Do we want to represent strictly the view of authoritative sources, or also those sources that are less authoritative?

BabyJonas (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I lost interest in the article at the 21st Century part, it's almost like beating a dead horse partly because no new source material appeared. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The modern debate:

• The Silence of Paul.
• The Silence of Jesus.
• The Suspicious Lacunae.
• The Gospel Genre.
• Predictions of expected extant evidence from theories: ahistoricity v. historicity.
• etc.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a while that this info was presented, so here it is again.

"Carrier said during an interview that: 'the basic hypothesis ... minimal historicity ... that Jesus was an ordinary person ... I would say all secular scholars agree that that has to be the truth ... the competing view, there are at least seven of us, ...'"(see this diff). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, the thesis of 'Christ Myth Theory' is not properly formulated in many of the above denunciations, or in the article lede. Scholarly opinion is merely reflecting the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. That is, you cannot demonstrate that a man meeting basic parameters similar to JoN never existed. The formulation in the info box, Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels is much better, as it puts the focus not on JoN's existence, but on his importance relative to other factors that went into the development of Christianity. JerryRussell (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Another possible formulation of 'Christ Myth Theory' would be the thesis that Biblical Jesus is a myth. That is, the belief that there was never a God-man who was born of a virgin, walked on water, and brought Lazarus back from the dead. That's the guy who is a myth, according to 'Christ Myth Theory'. Who invented that myth, or how was that myth invented? Now that's a question that would get some vigorous scholarly debate. JerryRussell (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thus we also have 'Christ Myth Theories' viz. 'Jesus Ahistoricity Theories' - online pdf: Lataster, Raphael (2015). "Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories — A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources". The Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 6:1: 68. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that mythicists don't have to prove the negative, they simply have to prove the positive part of their claim (that a myth about this Jesus figure, based on much older myths formed at around that time). Given what we know about myths and how they formed, that doesn't appear to be such a tall order. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this article should just be an enumeration of each unique theory—viz. any specific critique of the theory—on the origin of an Ahistorical Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. Prioritized by scholarly weight to avoid repetition of similar theories. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The goal should not be to prove but to describe the various constructions of myth theories and various criticisms. There are many constructions and not only one single "Christ myth theory". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I never said the article should prove anything. Please read my comment more carefully. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are a bunch of sources clearly stating what the CMT is. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"There have even been learned and intelligent men who have denied that Jesus ever existed: the so-called 'Christ-myth' theory." OMG! OMg! Omg! omg! This citation list is ridiculous, how many times do you have to state the same thing - which may be paraphrased as: The Christ-myth "theory" is the assertion that the Historicity of Jesus is false thus the Ahistoricity of Jesus is true. This of course begs the question: So then what was the origin of Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhetorical comment only, please spare me any WP policy blather.
The logical way of renaming the following two articles would be be to use a boolean scheme with only two possibilities:

• Historicity of Jesus → "Jesus Historicity theory"
• Christ myth theory → "Jesus Ahistoricity theory"

And then to create two new articles:

• "History of the Christ myth theory"
• "History of the Historicity of Jesus"

96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

These are almost entirely opponents of the theory, essentially they are constructing a straw man so that they can more easily demolish it. How many actual Christ Mythicists take the position that they can absolutely prove that Jesus never existed? Carrier doesn't, he just says it isn't very likely. JerryRussell (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Almost entirely opponents of the theory"? Are you serious? Everyone who is employed at an accredited institution thinks that the CMT is a dead thesis. It is certainly a fringe theory and some of them say so in very harsh language. Carrier is so far out of the mainstream of current academic scholarship that he is unemployable in any accredited university. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but it is abundantly verifiable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7, I don't question that most New Testament scholars employed at accredited institutions agree that historical Jesus existed. Therefore, CMT should be treated according to WP:FRINGE rules. You don't need to prove that. My question is, who gets to decide what 'Christ Myth Theory' is? Should it be defined by its opponents, or by its most credible proponents? Carrier says he can't prove Jesus didn't exist. Price says the same thing. So did Wells. JerryRussell (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims: Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research should be described clearly within their own articles. A WP:NPOV presentation of the CMT claims of proponents—of a fringe theory—in this article does not inherently ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter and thus is in accordance with WP:FRINGE policy. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"These are almost entirely opponents of the theory, essentially they are constructing a straw man so that they can more easily demolish it" - user Jerry Russell above. This question "What exactly is the CMT" has been discussed and argued about for years on this page, went to DRN, etc. etc. An editor emailed Robert Price and asked his opinion a couple of years ago, you can see the discussion here in the archives [5]. Price said ""I'd say the CMT is the position that no historical Jesus existed. The issue of "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory; rather it is a question of how firmly one holds to the theory."Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Jerry Russell, did you see the quote in the list of citations below "JESUS CHRIST, MYTH THEORY OF.The theory that Jesus Christ never existed.Bill Cooke, Dictionary Of Atheism, Skepticism, & Humanism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005) p. 278" Hardly likely to be an opponent of the idea on religious grounds. The CMT is the idea that a historical Jesus never existed.Smeat75 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Per "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory - Can the same be said of "Jesus Historicity theory" ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Its not rocket science, if Jesus Ahistoricity is true (in the context Evidential probability which does not imply 100% certainty) then the most probable origin of Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity is ________(fill in the blank via Evidential probability, also called Bayesian probability). 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Smeat75 for the links to historical discussions. The DRN noticeboard discussion was ended with a compromise, which was summarized by User:Akhilleus as follows:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_89#Christ_myth_theory

So here's my one-sentence statement of the dispute: seven editors have agreed that the first sentence of the article could read "The Christ Myth Theory...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels", and one editor does not agree to this.

If that's what was agreed to, why doesn't the lede currently say this? It's in the info box. JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Although FWIW, I largely agree with the position taken by @Wdford:. So that makes it at least "two against many", rather than "one against many". JerryRussell (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, criticism of the CMT, that is not relevant to this article is - gainsaying the CMT by asserting that Historicity of Jesus is true thus the CMT is false. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, it's my opinion that to effectively oppose CMT, the mainstream critics need to show not only that Jesus existed, but also that he was the founder of the religion. Of course many critics have argued against CMT simply on the grounds that Historicity of Jesus is true, and I don't want to suppress that argument from being discussed in the text. Also, some proponents of CMT have made the simple claim 'Jesus never existed' and I'm not trying to suppress that fact either. JerryRussell (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• The discussion above seem to be heading steadily in the wrong direction and starts to infrine on WP:NOTAFORUM. It's not for any of us to establish if the CMT is true or not nor to establish if Jesus existed or not. It's quite simply to present the basic ideas of CMT and explain why mainstream scholars universally reject it. Unfortunately, every time IP96 gets into the discussion, it has a tendency to head off into making personal deductions and arguments based on sources rather than presenting the main claims of the sources. Jeppiz (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cry me a river;

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." CMT [Christ myth theory] is such an ancillary article.

This is an ancillary article to Historicity of Jesus as the subject is a notably discussed within academia in conjunction with the Historicity of Jesus (see Google Scholar). This article is also WP:FRINGE and per Wikipedia:Fringe theories § Evaluating and describing claims: Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research should be described clearly within their own articles. A WP:NPOV presentation of the CMT claims of proponents—of a fringe theory—in this article does not inherently ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter and thus is in accordance with WP:FRINGE policy.

• The Wikipedia Fringe classification is not a derogatory term, or a way to push your truth by misrepresenting WP:FRINGE policy to suppress policy compliant content per your professed absolute belief in the Historicity of Jesus.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz and IP96, to bring the conversation back on-topic, do either of you have a position on the definition of CMT as it's stated in the lede? Can we at least go back to the consensus position from the 2014 DRN proceedings? The lede back in Dec 2012 was even better, with excellent sourcing, stating: [6]

The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.... The strongest version of the myth theories contends that there was no real historical figure Jesus and that he was invented by early Christians. Another variant holds that there was a person called Jesus, but much of the teachings and miracles attributed to him were either invented or symbolic references. Yet another version suggests that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament is a composite character constructed from multiple people over a period of time....

The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism or Jesus ahistoricity) refers to several theories that hold that the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus can be extracted from them, and some proponents furthur assert that it is more likely than not that there was no real historical Jesus. It has been accepted by some academics as a fringe theory. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would help a lot if the lede were to define the CMT properly to begin with. The opening paragraphs quoted above were excellent and accurate. However, over time there have been repeated forays by some editors to undermine the CMT by defining it inaccurately, and then promptly piling in to demolish the incorrect definition as "fringe". If the lede openly admitted that some definitions of the CMT accept a possible historical Jesus-person but deny that the Jesus-person in question was a divine being around whom a new religion was founded, etc etc, then things would probably proceed more smoothly.

I note also that the argument against the CMT is based almost entirely on the argument in favour of the Historicity of Jesus, which has its own article. The "criticism" section can thus be reduced to a single paragraph that notes that "most scholars accept that some sort of original Jesus-person existed in some form", and refer the reader to that article for the historicity discussion. The CMT article can then be a discussion of the CMT, which I submit is the appropriate approach. Wdford (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To avoid the dog-piling of gainsaying criticism from future editors it should be noted that gainsaying the CMT by asserting that Historicity of Jesus is true thus the CMT is false, is a valid criticism, but that repeating its variations are just saying the same thing:

• Josephus is true thus the CMT is false.
• The gospels are true thus the CMT is false.
• etc. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Several editors above suggested that it would make a lot of sense to have this article organized by general themes or distinctive viewpoints within the overall umbrella of CMT, rather than simply have a chronological / historical organization.

Not so long ago, that was exactly the case. As of Aug. 9, 2013, this article was over 170K bytes long, and organized mostly topically, but with a history section as well.

Around Aug. 8, 2013, an extensive talk-page discussion began on the definition of CMT, with no obvious consensus that I could discern.

On Aug. 10, an editor by the name of PiCo re-wrote the lede to change the definition of CMT so that it included only those who would deny Jesus' existence. On the talk page, he said I'm not trying to railroad anyone here, but I think that if I don't edit boldly nothing will happen. Between Aug 11 and Aug 13, the article was cut to less than half its original size, and the previous organization was lost. Nothing was left except the chronology. Smeat75 and Akhilleus supported the changes, which were not contested on the talk page until Aug. 29. At that point, another editor, Greengrounds, questioned the extensive deletions. An ANI ticket was raised and Greengrounds was blocked on behavioral grounds, and there was no further discussion about the deleted materials.

I'm not saying we should return to the Aug 2013 version of the article, but in my opinion a lot of excellent, highly relevant and well sourced material fell under the knife, defined into irrelevance by the change in definition of CMT -- including material organized exactly as suggested by Clean Copy, Gonzales John and Wdford in the recent discussions.

In particular, sections 'Myth theories and responses', 'Arguments from Silence', 'Ancient Sources', and 'Fantasms and myths' seem to present an excellent overview of CMT positions.

The 2013 version of the article was being criticized on the basis that the earlier definition was so broad that it could include most any biblical scholar who thought that Gospel Jesus included any mythological components. I can understand that criticism. But if we went with the 2014 consensus "The Christ Myth Theory...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels" that shouldn't be a problem, and I believe most of the material cut in 2013 could come back with minor updates.

Thoughts? JerryRussell (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The modern debate:

• The Silence of Paul.
• The Silence of Jesus.
• The Suspicious Lacunae.
• The Gospel Genre.
• Predictions of expected extant evidence from theories: ahistoricity v. historicity.
• etc.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

One more piece of history: the 2014 consensus about the lede held until May 20 of this year, when it was changed by MXfurry without any talk page discussion that I can find. JerryRussell (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to allow the critics of the CMT to define the CMT (inaccurately). Allow the proponents to define their own theory. Let's restore the May 20 version of the lede, and polish it up from there. Wdford (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree: A WP:NPOV presentation of the CMT claims of proponents—of a fringe theory—in this article does not inherently ignore or downplay mainstream academia's perspective on the matter and thus is in accordance with WP:FRINGE policy. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jerry, the version from 2013 had some advantages, but also some rather serious advantages. It gave very little space to critics, and mainly consisted of laying out the CMT arguments by laymen while ignoring the academic view. That's something that could be edited, of course. Another big problem, and one that most users agreed to address, was the excessive amount of space given to what can only be described as tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists. I'm not talking about the serious CMT proponents here (Price for instance) but people with absolutely no academic competence in the field making absolutely bizarre claims (Ellegård, Allegro, Murdock etc.). A problem we've had on this article for years is that some people have used it as PR, doing long and irrelevant autobiographies of even the most outlandish conspiracy theorists. So yes, the version in 2013 was rather long, but it was long for precisely the wrong reasons. We need more focus on the actual CMT and less focus on the individual proponents, not the other way around. Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Modern scholarship rectifies these issues as the substandard editor contributions you noted may now be addressed by WP:weight and other policies applied within this article to PR & irrelevant content. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, I hadn't heard of Ellegard before you mentioned him, but your description of Allegro and Murdock as having absolutely no academic competence is what strikes me as odd. They weren't PhD's but had master's level training. Considering the manifest scorn heaped on their views by traditional academics, I think their decision not to pursue the PhD career path was very rational. Nevertheless they're very well known in the field, and some mention of their work is appropriate. The version from 2013 that I'm looking at has one sentence about Allegro and two sentences about Murdock, which doesn't seem disproportionate considering their contributions to the field. Ellegard has a link, and that's all. According to his Wiki bio page, he has a PhD in English syntax. We've had this discussion before: I believe that interdisciplinary work is essential to scientific progress, and extremely narrow credentialism is not justified by Wiki policies.

I don't know what you mean when you say the old article "mainly consisted of laying out the CMT arguments by laymen". What I see is that it consisted of a description of CMT arguments based on well documented and authoritative sources, as paraphrased by Wikipedia editors, just like any other wiki article. The descriptions of CMT arguments were liberally interspersed with replies from mainstream opponents of CMT, just as one might expect. So I'm puzzled by your view that these materials needed to be deleted, and I see very little by way of talk-page discussion at the time it was done.

I've copied the deleted materials to my sandbox, here User:JerryRussell/sandbox and I propose that we review & discuss whether the material is suitable for re-introducing into the article. Anyone can feel free to make edits in my sandbox. JerryRussell (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am guessing that the rejection of the noted authors is predicated on the WP:FRINGE and WP:weight policy, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources". But I am not up to date on the specifics or even if the rejection is valid per WP policy. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

JerryRussell, I'm not going to rehash the whole previous discussion. People like Allegro, Murdock and Ellegård are not WP:RS and whatever you personally think of them is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant. Having a PhD in a completely different field does not give competence in all other fields. A PhD in Greek literature does not make one a specialist in brain surgery. That's all I'm going to say about that, as I find the continuous discussion of this obvious point disruptive. I know of few other pages that keep attracting conspiracy theorists eager to include their pet gurus like this one and it's very tiresome. WP:RS applies across the board, not just when it suits our needs. Jeppiz (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Flashback On Thomas L. Thompson:
You can read WP:RS, although it changes a bit from topic to topic. An article in a respected newspaper would usually be WP:RS on current affairs but not necessarily WP:RS on academic subjects. With regards to Jesus, the best publication is by a Professor in the field, by an established academic publisher and peer-reviewed. Please note that while Thompson is a specialist on the old testament, that does not make him a specialist on the new testament just like being a historian specialist on Genghis Khan is not a specialist on Mahatma Gandhi. As for Verenna, he is not RS on anything in this field, he's a man with opinions, not a scholar, and the same thing for for Earl Doherty. This does not mean they cannot be right, that's not what RS is about. As for Thompson (or anyone else) making claims about themselves, these claims should be backed up by independent sources or we should indicate that it's just a claim from the person concerned.To take a relevant example. Both Thomas Thompson are Bart Ehrman are scholars, both of them publish both on the old testament and the new testament. The difference is that Thompson is a scholar on the old testament (implies knowledge of the old Hebrew language, ancient Egypt, Cananite legends, ancient Israel), Ehrman on the new testament implies knowledge of the Koine Greek language, Roman Israel, Gnosticism, apocalyptics). What Thompson writes about the old testament is WP:RS, but not what he writes about the new testament, and what Ehrman writes about the new testament is WP:RS, but not what he writes about the old testament. Both Thompson and Ehrman are noted scholars, both of them have lots of opinions about their own field and about the other's field. They are both RS in their own filed, not RS in the other's field. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your hyper-specificity on historicity expertise in regards to the historicity/ahistoricity of Jesus is nonsense. Your are attempting to establish a false context that only experts that have expertise in a specific field are WP:RS by using specious examples. Try to WP:HEAR that a horse warfare expert is WP:RS on how Ghengis Khan may have used his horses when the preserved written records on the subject are lost or unreliable. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, Thompson is an excellent example, especially considering his background and impact in areas such as the historicity of Abraham. I see that in this case, the matter was resolved by an RFC. Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_56#RfC_about_the_length_of_sections_on_Thompson.2C_Carrier_and_others (JerryRussell) 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was "summarize their opinions about CMT" which included Thompson, Thomas L. (20 April 2009). "Historicizing the Figure of Jesus, the Messiah". The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. Basic Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-7867-3911-0. The assumptions that (1) the gospels are about a Jesus of history and (2) expectations that have a role within a story's plot were also expectations of a historical Jesus and early Judaism, as we will see, are not justified. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

IP, are you intentionally being disruptive or can't you help being disruptive? What's the point of posting long quotes. Let me inform you about linking. Yes, I remember what I wrote and I remember your answer. I stand by what I wrote, a PhD (and I have one myself) does not make one a universal expert. So the argument "Hey, this guy is a PhD so he automatically qualifies" is just plain stupid. I agree with you that an expert on horse warfare is a WP:RS on how Ghegis Khan used horses. That is precisely the argument I've made, repeatedly. Being an expert in a relevant field. That's the idea here, citing recognised experts in the field rather than cherrypicking non-experts because you share their view. Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I did use the <-small-> tag and I can barley read it on my 60 inch monitor, are you using a mobile ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless Jeppiz: Carrier and Thompson won the RFC, in spite of Thompson's alleged lack of relevant qualifications. I found IP96's post of the quote above to be very informative and helpful, and I assume he posted it for my benefit. Please be civil and assume good faith.

For the sake of moving the discussion forward, I have gone through the material at my sandbox page and eliminated all references to Allegro, Ellegrand, Acharya/Murdock, and anybody else who I consider obviously open to challenge. A weakness of the old material was the dependence on GA Wells, but since he is so extensively discussed in RS rebuttals, and since he is considered historically the first and best source of many of the arguments (aside from Strauss and Bauer) his continued inclusion is justified.

My feeling is that the entire section on "context & background" at my sandbox, is largely redundant to the existing sections on chronological development / well known proponents, and I wouldn't advocate to bring it back. The rest, I think, is pretty good. JerryRussell (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just as a short reminder: We have an ongoing RfC to decide between two versions, the current one and the one suggested by Gonzales John. There is not even a suggestion to revert to a version from three years ago or any version you may have in your sandbox. Please note that this is not a criticism of the version you may have there as I haven't read it, just a reminder that it's not one of the options being discussed and if you want to put it forward (as you of course have every right to do), then please file a new RfC. Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, reading an RFC to divine a consensus is tricky business, but what I see above is that five editors have clearly opposed Gonzales John edits. Another five have expressed that the existing article is poorly organized and needs a lot of work, but I don't think those editors were supporting the direction advocated by Gonzales John. Only three editors have clearly supported Gonzales John's changes. In your case, you mentioned a goal of getting rid of bad content, but you didn't say what you think about GJ's POV changes to the lede.

The work I've been doing is in hopes of supporting those editors who think the existing article needs a revised organization. I'm not sure whether a new RFC is necessary at this point, or whether a new consensus might emerge out of the existing RFC. Or, the content from 2013 could be introduced gradually into the existing article. It's possible there will be no opposition to well-sourced and neutral content. JerryRussell (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my view on GJ's suggestion is ambiguous. I think it had some good elements, but some problems as well, which is why I have not expressed a clear 'support' or 'reject' option. If you come up with a better version, then great. The one thing any new version really should include is what --Akhilleus said about "*why* scholars think the CMT is loopy". A problem for a long time has been that people have cherrypicked sources just to match their own view, pretty much ignoring WP:RS. Both "sides" are at least partly guilty of some offenses there, though I dare say the CMT camp has gone much further by digging up obvious RS-failures such as Murdock, Allegro, Ellegård and some others. My opposition to them is based on RS, not on any opposition to CMT and I would not mind a more detailed exposure of some main theories of Price and Carrier. Still, they must not (as per NPOV) be presented in such a way that readers believe they are commonly accepted or even that they form a notable minority position. It's a fringe position (in the neutral sense of the word) and what we'd really need is more sound scholarly sources. If StAnselm, Jonathan_Tweet and Isambard_Kingdom have the time, I'm sure they could much of real value. Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves." Inasmuch as this is an article about Christ Mythicists, wouldn't it be permissible to refer to sources such as Murdock, Allegro and Ellegard according to that policy? As to other materials, WP:RS says "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" and that books can be used if published by "well-regarded academic presses". Murdock would fail that test, but Allegro and Ellegard might pass. It doesn't say that "only professors in the specific most relevant topic are qualified under any circumstances". JerryRussell (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The key terms are "high-quality mainstream publications" and "reliable third-party publications" and "well-regarded academic presses", anything they print can be used in the article within WP:weight constraints, you might get some answers at Wikipedia:Questions. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, I agree that high-quality, well-regarded, mainstream sources are best, although the other sources used in the article have been subject to editorial scrutiny for some time, and can be construed as falling under the exceptions I mentioned. I also think Jeppiz is right that Price and Carrier are the most highly reliable sources at this point, and can form the backbone of the article, along with mainstream RS. JerryRussell (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I propose formulating a new RFC.

• CMT RFC Questions: withdrawn and closed

1. Should a new article be created: "The History of the Christ myth theory" and the historical content from the current CMT article moved to it.
2. Should the content proposed by JerryRussell be merged into the current CMT article, or should the CMT article first be reduced to a stub, or should no change be made to the current CMT article.

"The History of the Christ myth theory" would not be an article per se but actually a list of "Christ myth theory proponents" arranged in a chronological order. And thus would require little to no maintenance. It will not present theories in context or perform any other encyclopedic function. Contributions can be limited and appropriately screened by WP policies. - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC) and update 12:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) and question strike 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC) and close 17:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No. There is no need whatsoever to put the history into a separate page. I fail to see why this is even being proposed. We do not need another time wasting RfC. Charles (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No. If you take out the "history" material, there is virtually nothing left. The CMT consists of the views of its proponents - and since different proponents have different views, in order to report the CMT we need to report the views of the various proponents. It is also inappropriate to limit "valid proponents" to persons who are serving professors in biblical history etc, as Ehrman has pointed out that people who are proponents of the CMT will never be appointed as professors to begin with. Wdford (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wdford, up above in the RfC, Clean Copy wrote to achieve better balance, I would suggest grouping the objections to Jesus' existence thematically, rather than by author, and including in each section the chief critiques of the objection. and you agreed, saying I also agree to this approach, provided that the "chief critiques" must present actual argument, and not just a blanket statement of unsubstantiated rejection from a (potentially biased) critic. So now I'm confused as to whether you've changed your mind. It seems to me that the arguments of the various CMT theorists are indeed all working from a common core. Perhaps Richard Carrier's book is an exception, it pioneers a lot of new ground.

If all you're saying is that you're opposed to creating a new 'history' article, I see your point. 'History of Christ Mythicism' might not even be a notable topic in and of itself, and might be a sitting duck target for AfD. JerryRussell (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• First question is withdrawn.

This article is currently just a list of "Christ myth theory proponents" masquerading as an article. There is no topical presentation of theories in context with each other. This article was jacked about 3 years ago and and since then has been utterly worthless in regards to its encyclopedic function, other than being a mundane list and for collecting repetitive gainsaying criticism. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Basically all I was saying is that I'm opposed to creating a new 'history' article. I do agree with grouping by theme - that is probably the most realistic way to portray the CMT, although there will be a lot of overlap between the various themes and the various authors. This would however certainly reduce the verbiage and make the article more useful.

The critiques of the CMT can basically be grouped into five main points:

1. Jesus was mentioned in the non-gospel sources of Josephus and Tacitus - true, but the authenticity of these three paltry "mentions" is disputed.
2. The criterion of embarrassment, which states that Jesus must have been real because a Christian fraudster creating a fake cult would not have made his god-man look bad. This is patent nonsense, as the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc were all disgusting swine who freely engaged in deceit, betrayal, murder, rape, incest, treachery and all manner of evil shite. The Judeo-Christian god is suspiciously squeaky-clean in comparison, although the Old Testament god is occasionally portrayed as a cruel and capricious monster.
3. It is impossible to suppose that cult-founders of the 1st Century would have invented the whole Jesus-backstory out of fresh air, so there must have been a real human at the base of it all, even if most of the gospels is pure myth. This point does carry some weight, but then again, the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc all had impressive backstories - often far more detailed than that of Jesus of Nazareth.
4. There is no hard evidence for most historical figures, so the absence of any hard evidence for Jesus does not mean he never existed. True, but that doesn't mean that he did exist, either. And anyway, a) there are few claims for supernatural acts by most other historical figures - they do all at least stick to the basic laws of physics; and b) there is no hard evidence for the existence of the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc either, so if the absence of physical evidence is no obstacle to the historicity of Jesus, then surely the same standard must apply to the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc?
5. Lots of scholars are certain that Jesus really lived. This is pretty much what it all boils down to. Mmmmmmmm.

Since these same arguments are applied against all CMT proponents, it might on reflection be better to have a criticism paragraph that summarize this, and refers the reader to the Historicity of Jesus article for the detail. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

A criticism paragraph is probably the best solution.

As I understand: 1&5 are simple gainsaying - thus note that it is valid and refer the reader to the Historicity of Jesus & summarize why repetition of all the possible variations adds nothing more to the criticism.

The others can noted in summary, although it will probably be ignored as some editors love the smack-down of a full quote of the Ehrman. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a thematic treatment is the best approach. As for Wdford's post above, could I kindly point out (again) that it's not our task to offer our individual interpretations of scholarly references. Perhaps I misread some statements, but sometimes I've had the impression some users believe that this is the article where we give CMT a "friendly" treatment and let it sets out all its arguments more or less unopposed. That is the misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We can, and should, have articles on fringe and minority theories but NPOV is very clear that even in these articles, the majority academic view is given priority. So if Wdford is just laying out a personal view, then fine (though read WP:NOTAFORUM. If Wdford is making a proposition that first we present CMT in detail, then a short criticism section that mainly is about the CMT reply to mainstream scholarship, then no. Jeppiz (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wdford thought that Wdford had been very clear about what Wdford is proposing: that the CMT be described in detail (since this is after all the CMT article), and that the views of mainstream scholarship be properly reflected IN SUMMARY rather than an exhaustive list of parrots, and that the ACTUAL BASIS of those criticisms be accurately reflected in the article so that readers can clearly understand the underlying substance thereof. Since the ACTUAL BASIS of those criticisms is in reality very limited, a centralised summary thereof might be useful in helping the reader as well as in reducing the wordage - which is apparently the core objective of this initiative? Wdford (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe Jeppiz is correct, that the article needs to clearly state the reasons for 'mainstream' opposition to CMT. However, I'm not sure this needs to be judged on strict parity of text length, as Gonzales John suggested above. The main purpose of the article is not necessarily to give a 'favorable' view of CMT, but it should give an accurate and nuanced view. While the mainstream of biblical critics ultimately disagree with CMT conclusions, many of the points raised by CMT authors are non-controversial. Also, I believe many mainstream critics are attacking a straw man, rather than seriously addressing CMT issues, many of which go un-answered by the critics.

My reading of the source literature is that most CMT authors are primarily focused on showing that Biblical Jesus is mythical and/or fictional, and don't really care whether some minimal 'historical Jesus' existed or not. Carrier's formulation is focused on the question of whether some person known as 'historical Jesus' was really the founder of the religion of Christianity, or whether the religion was created through some other process.

Wdford's answers to various mainstream criticisms of CMT are interesting. Wdford, can you get citations for those arguments from CMT authors (the more reliable the better)? If so, perhaps we can work them into the article. If not, I'm afraid Jeppiz' comments would apply, that we can't use original research or personal reflections in Wiki.

I've been re-reading Carrier's book this morning, and also a snatch of Acharya S, and realizing that we can do a lot better than the old text from 2013. I'm no longer recommending bringing the old materials back, at least not without extensive revisions first. JerryRussell (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wdford's points are unfortunately all wrong, so it is most unlikely he(?) will be able to source them. To summarise:

(1) Jesus was mentioned in the non-gospel sources of Josephus and Tacitus - true, but the authenticity of these three paltry "mentions" is disputed. False. There is no dispute about Tacitus (there is one article from 1964 that suggests the mention may be from another work by Tacitus, but no suggestion he did not write it). There is one article disputing the second, passing reference to Jesus as the brother of Jacob by Richard Carrier, which despite Carrier's remarkably egotistical claim that every single scholar on the subject would have to alter all their work to take this into account, boils down essentially to 'Jesus didn't exist, therefore this reference is wrong, ergo I suspect it is a marginal note that was incorrectly copied'. The other Josephan passage, the longer one, clearly has been altered, but the majority of scholars tend to the view that there was a genuine kernel that was emended. The only really big name I can think of of the top of my head who stands out against that and for full falsification is Joseph Hoffman.

(2)The criterion of embarrassment, which states that Jesus must have been real because a Christian fraudster creating a fake cult would not have made his god-man look bad. This is patent nonsense, as the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc were all disgusting swine who freely engaged in deceit, betrayal, murder, rape, incest, treachery and all manner of evil shite. The Judeo-Christian god is suspiciously squeaky-clean in comparison, although the Old Testament god is occasionally portrayed as a cruel and capricious monster. Wdford here misunderstands the criterion of embarrassment, which means something altogether different - not that 'Jesus looked bad' but that it was impossible to visualise the Jewish Messiah being crucified in such a humiliating and shameful death, therefore it is unlikely that it was invented.

(3) It is impossible to suppose that cult-founders of the 1st Century would have invented the whole Jesus-backstory out of fresh air, so there must have been a real human at the base of it all, even if most of the gospels is pure myth. This point does carry some weight, but then again, the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings etc etc all had impressive backstories - often far more detailed than that of Jesus of Nazareth. And all established over a much longer timeframe. The gospels and the Pauline epistles, not to mention Josephus and Tacitus, were writing within a hundred years of Jesus' death. The myths of Horus and Heracles grew over millenia.

(4) There is no hard evidence for most historical figures, so the absence of any hard evidence for Jesus does not mean he never existed. True, but that doesn't mean that he did exist, either. And anyway, a) there are few claims for supernatural acts by most other historical figures - they do all at least stick to the basic laws of physics; and b) there is no hard evidence for the existence of the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc either, so if the absence of physical evidence is no obstacle to the historicity of Jesus, then surely the same standard must apply to the gods of the Egyptians, the Sumerians etc etc? In a sense that's true, but it is also a circular point. We have evidence for the existence of Jesus, even if Davis (a minimalist, let it not be forgotten) describes it as 'fragile'. Therefore, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, we will go with such evidence as we have. Those who wish to go against this can write fiction.

(5) Lots of scholars are certain that Jesus really lived. This is pretty much what it all boils down to. Mmmmmmmm. Wikipedia summarises scholarship. If you wish to work with the paranoid conspiracy theories of third rate pseudoscholars like Dorothy Murdock, or for that matter Richard Carrier (whose foray into German history included a memorable and repeated claim that David Irving was not a Holocaust denier in order to try and present him as a reliable source) I suggest you patronise an atheist apologetics forum. Here, we will stick with scholars - those people who know what they are talking about and have the necessary training and skills to interpret source material correctly.

Incidentally I would point out that one sentence in the lede is wholly inaccurate and effectively unsourced. The CMT is not traced to MArcion heresies - it has a clear, well-defined link to nineteenth century scholarship. The sources quoted are Dawkins The God Delusion (which is not peer reviewed and is classified as a work of polemical fiction) Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great (which is also a polemic and is written by yet another individual who repeatedly claimed in the face of all evidence that Irving is not a Holocaust denier in order to annoy the liberal left) and Thompson's The Messiah Myth (Thompson is a minor figure whose Old Testament work is increasingly regarded as irrelevant and has no expertise in this field). I have removed that sentence; if it is to be reinstated it needs to be supported with actual scholarship. 86.153.32.61 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP86, the lede did not say anything about Marcion heresies in particular -- it could just as well refer to Celsus, Porphyry, Arius, or others. It mentions 'core tenets' of the thesis, and makes no claim of a direct causal link of influence. Thompson's Old Testament work is also widely regarded as having produced a sea change in that field. The Messiah Myth was published by Basic Books which is a respected academic publisher, and is therefore clearly RS. JerryRussell (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

JerryRussell, could you please point out where exactly Thompson says anything about "core tenets" of the CMT going back to antiquity? As far as I remember, Thompson says nothing about the history of the CMT, and really nothing about the CMT at all—in the Messiah Myth he says he's not saying anything at all about the historical Jesus, so I've always been perplexed why his book is included in this article at all. But certainly I don't think anything he writes supports the sentence 86.153.32.61 removed—which is not that surprising, since the sentence is erroneous. The CMT really takes form in the 19th century, with some antecedents in the 18th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus, I confess I was relying on the work of earlier editors, and I haven't verified what Thompson said. Is there a quick and easy way to search history to find out which editor created the item? Perhaps they could pinpoint a page reference. The phrase "core tenets" does beg the question, what those core tenets are. JerryRussell (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty confident that Thompson's work doesn't support the text in the lead, so I'm going to remove it. Anyone who wants to restore the text should supply a source. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm thinking of putting Thompson's book on my reading list. As of right now I don't have a copy. JerryRussell (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz asked me to weigh in, perhaps because I have a number of good RSs for this topic. One of them is Historical Jesus, the only university-level textbook I have found on the topic. Here's how the textbook handles the topic.

1. An introduction lays out the history of the idea as well as the ideological context. Some atheists want the gospels to be inscrutable so they can mock Christianity. Some Christians also want the gospels to be inscrutable, in their case to affirm that only faith matters and not the unkind things that historians say about Jesus.
2. The introduction names a few prominent scholars up until about 100 years ago: Baeur, Kalthoff, and Drews. It doesn't seem to mention later scholars by name. (I surmise that this is probably because there have been no serious mythicist scholars for the last 100 years. They've all been polemicists and apologists rehashing the same old arguments.)
3. The body of this section then raises thirteen separate objections to historians being able to conclude anything about Jesus. He addresses each objection in turn. Historians can indeed discern probable features of Jesus and his career.

The main thing to bear in mind on this page is that the reader must never be in doubt as to the academic standing of CMT. It is a fringe idea, not even a minority view. The Jesus Seminar says that Jesus was not apocalyptic. That's a minority view held by a number of important scholars on the topic. The view that historians can't identify a historical Jesus—that view is fringe. I'm an atheist myself, but there's no getting around the fact that historians actually know what they're talking about when it comes to Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan Tweet, I'm having trouble finding the book you're describing. Google Books has books by that title (more or less) by Le Donne, Habermas, Crossan, Beilby & Eddy, Bond, Evans, Keener, Weaver, Charlesworth, and Zahmt, but none of them looks like a textbook. JerryRussell (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@ 86.153.32.61 : You happily gloss over the fact that Christianity was NOT a Jewish cult, it was concocted primarily by the Romans. The Romans had no problem with the Messiah being crucified in a humiliating and shameful death. Rather, they would have looked at the parallels with non-Jewish Dying-and-rising gods of the time, and concluded that for the new cult to prosper it would HAVE to have a dying god. Seen in this context, the so-called “criterion of embarrassment” actually becomes a “criterion of forgery”. You also gloss over the fact that the new cult did not need millennia to evolve – in reality they could readily cut and paste elements from the existing “competing” religions. So with some “fragile” evidence – essentially three disputed mentions in secular sources – you claim an authentic historical figure, and brand contrary opinions as “paranoid conspiracy theories of third rate pseudo-scholars” and “atheist apologetics”, along with ad hominem attacks. “Proper” scholars readily accept that the historical Jesus was merely a Jewish mortal onto whose ordinary life the concoction of the Christian cult was slathered, but it amazes me how emotional some people still get about attacking the CMT. Wdford (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

IP96 created a new section in the article, describing Richard Carrier's views on the Pauline Epistles. I added a few clarifying remarks, and brought in some supporting materials and mainstream views for NPOV. I hope other editors will agree that this is consistent with the direction the RfC is going, that there has been substantial support for a more topical organization of the article. JerryRussell (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the section as it's currently written. The basic structure is: mainstream scholarship says this about the Pauline epistles, Wells and Carrier say something else, Eddy and Boyd refute them, and then here's two Pauline passages that pertain to Jesus' historicity. There's not enough detail on Wells and Carrier for someone who hasn't already read Wells and Carrier to understand their arguments (e.g., what is "celestial deity" supposed to mean here? Aren't all deities celestial?) It's unclear why Eddy and Boyd are brought in (they weren't responding to Carrier, so writing as if they did is WP:SYNTH), and the last paragraph of the section doesn't seem to relate to anything that came before. In general, I'm wary of the topical organization because it makes it seem as if all CMT proponents hold the same position on some topic. In fact, Carrier's position on the Pauline epistles is quite different than Wells', and from earlier figures such as Arthur Drews. I think this is potentially very confusing for readers. Furthermore, topical sections should be a description of various positions rather than an argumentative back-and-forth, which is what they can easily become; I think language such as "Eddy and Boyd present multiple arguments that serve to refute such mythicist hypotheses" crosses the line from being descriptive to being argumentative. I'd rather have a section that clearly lays out Carrier's views and any notable responses to them. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Points well taken. We need to keep working on this section. In the 2013 version of the text, Eddy and Boyd were presented as direct refutations of Wells, and although I think they serve quite well as answers to Carrier, it was synth on my part to say so. I haven't read Wells or Drews so I can't be much help about that. Price has an entire book on Paul, which I have read, and which could be presented here as well. JerryRussell (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Christ myth theory § Pauline epistles (this rev) explains Carriers conclusions "but not being fully transformed into a man, just looking like one" or being a solar deity. Philippians 2:7 is about Christ's preexistence, but how does Carrier jump from physical appearance to his conclusion based on that?

Romans 8:3 is about Jesus having no sin. Carrier's fragment is too short and does not convey the meaning of the Romans 8:3 phrase "by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (NRSV) or "by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (NABRE). Does Carrier address the notion that things resemble other things, for example Jesus' flesh without sin resembled other flesh with sin?

Writing that "Wells criticized the infrequency of the reference to Jesus in the Pauline letters" is just a simple statement of fact that Wells criticized – it lacks any description or reasoning for his criticism, or mention of Q, a theoretical construct.

@Akhilleus: a comment and not an argument: its a false equivalence to say that the Judeo-Christain deity is in the category of celestial or solar deities because other deities are in the category of celestial or solar deities. It is a point separate from the point of incarnation that Paul wrote about. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an entire category of mythicists(?) who claim that Gospel Jesus is a fictional character based on some well-known historical figure. Excluding self-published and blogs, we have 'Roman Origins' theorists:

Joseph Atwill -> Titus Flavius

Francesco Carotta -> Julius Caesar

Kenneth Atchity -> Augustus Caesar

Stephan Huller -> Herod Agrippa II 1

And, what I might call 'Jewish Zealot origins' theorists:

sv:Lena Einhorn -> 'The Egyptian' 2

Daniel Unterbrink -> Judas the Galilean 3

Einhorn is a very well-known European documentary film-maker and author. She doesn't have a Wiki page, but I'm sure she would meet WP:GNG. Huller and Unterbrink, probably not.

Richard Carrier mentions that he thinks Jesus is a fictional compound character based on several historical figures, though he doesn't say which ones.

I'd like to solicit some opinions. Should all this be covered here in this article? Or, one or maybe two new articles? JerryRussell (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe a new list: "List of Jesus historicity dissidents". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have RS sources, lets build a section in this article. If it gets big enough, we can spin it out later? Wdford (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not a big enough subject to warrant more than a single article. We only need to include the views of people with historical expertise.Charles (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No, those do not belong in this article because they are not the Christ myth, which is the idea that Jesus never existed. You can try creating a new article about "Jesus was really a Roman emperor" or whatever and link to this one.Smeat75 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Could I point out that none of the six people listed above have any qualification in the field. As I've said several times, I think we really need to move away from this cherrypicking of "whichever crack-head said something cool about Jesus" to look at people who actually have a minimum of competence in the field. Jeppiz (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75, it comes back to the definition of 'Christ myth theory'. All of these authors are saying that the New Testament is historical fiction. It should be pretty obvious that Jesus of Nazareth is not the same person as Augustus Caesar or even 'The Egyptian', and also that scholarly pictures of 'historical Jesus' as compiled during the three 'quests' have little or no resemblance to such as Titus Flavius. These authors are generally discussed in context of CMT. But if we want to go with a very narrow definition of what CMT is, then this doesn't belong here.

Jeppiz, I agree that none of those authors have the qualifications which you have deemed optimal. My choice for these particular authors was based on the fact that their books are published by reputable publishers. That happens to be Wiki's actual minimum requirement for RS. Of course whatever content is created about this topic needs to meet the consensus of the group. JerryRussell (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IMO the labeling, is confusing:

• Historicity of Jesus → "Jesus Historicity theory"
• Christ myth theory → "Jesus Ahistoricity theory" (theory for the origin of a—non-historical Jesus Jesus not accepted by "Jesus Historicity theory" proponents—in relation to the origin of Christianity)

Ideally they should both contain Agnostic proponents, for the evidential values they claim; for the historical Jesus & for the origin of Christianity sans historical Jesus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, I agree the terminology is confusing. But, the phrase "Christ Myth Theory" or "mythicism" is widely used in the RS literature. 'Jesus ahistoricity theory', not so much? I support keeping the existing title, and explaining the situation as clearly as we can in the lede.

I am asking for comment regarding recent edits made by Gonzales John (talk). My main concern is that the edits appear to violate the neutrality of the article. The use of phrases such as "Christ myth theories are, in the modern age, not taken seriously by virtually all competent scholars" and "a person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts", coupled with the elimination of more than 20,000 bytes of referenced material as "excess info" and "undue weight" (quoting directly from edit summaries) and earlier revisions describing this as a "conspiracy theory" lead me to believe that this editor has a non-neutral agenda they wish to impose.

I have asked Gonzales John to please refrain from making such edits and instead bring their concerns to this Talk page. Rather than let this devolve into an edit war, I would value input from other interested editors as to what direction this article should take. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

To make the entire picture clear to your insistence: my edits were done not based on what I believe (unlike as you claim), but on what the scholarly consensus says. Simply per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue Weight; we should make it clear that the vast majority of scholars have a consensus that a historical Jesus did exist. This article's amount of coverage on the arguments and criticisms should be based on how many scholars take each seriously. The reason why I removed large amounts of data was in order to make the sizes of the sections of the proponent's arguments and the criticisms equal in size, in order to make the consensus of majority of the scholars clear.

Besides, the Christ myth theory is rarely taken seriously by present-day scholars. To quote:

• In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". (Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.)
• Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". (Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.)
• James D.G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". (Sykes, Stephen W. (2007). "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus". Sacrifice and Redemption. Cambridge University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-521-04460-8.)
• Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". (Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.)
• Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

Gonzales John (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that this article is about the theory itself, not whether the theory is widely held or accepted. The edits you want to make give the impression of saying, "This is a bunch of hogwash," a perception backed up by your earlier edits describing it as a "conspiracy theory." Whether or not you believe it is entirely irrelevant: we, as editors, must not allow our personal opinions to influence our neutrality. This article should be limited to "Here is the theory, here is the history of the theory, here are the people who have championed it and why, here are the people who have objected to it and why," without letting personal bias get in the way of that information. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Gonzales John, I have asked you to respect the RfC and hold off on your changes until others have had a chance to weigh in. I find it unfortunate that you declined to honor that request. I will wait on reverting your edits until I am clear of the Three Revert Rule, but mind you that other editors are free to bring the article back to the state it was in before you began editing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if this article is not about whether the theory is widely accepted, it should still reflect the scholarly consensus, per WP:Undue Weight. Also, as I have said countless times now, my edits were not based on my feelings, but rather on the scholarly conesensus.Gonzales John (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

John's edit does not violate the neutrality of the article. The edit concisely informs the reader of the current state of the CMT among virtually all scholars. It's a fringe theory, plain and simple, as the quotes amply demonstrate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is not only one single "Christ myth theory" but each proponent writes a somewhat similar narrative constructed from the available information. These ideas about myth are closely coupled with ideas about historicity of Jesus and the premise that Jesus is the origin of Christianity. These three sets of ideas are emotional issues for Christians and conflated quite a bit. This article has a history of edits that push points of views instead of describing what the various constructions of myth theories and various criticisms are. For example, I think that Robert Price's quote in the article describes the subtlety of at least Price's construction: "I am not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that origin is pure myth; rather, I am saying that there may indeed have been such a myth, and that if so, it eventually flowed together with other Jesus images, some one of which may have been based on a historical Jesus the Nazorean." I think large scale removing and replacing harms the article and that those kinds of edits are emotional but well intentioned. The article should describe what the various narratives constructed by proponents are and criticism of specific narratives. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

There being different versions of the Christ myth theory does not mean that we should include ALL view points, and the Christ Myth theory itself has little importance in the first place. Besides my edit pemrits the article to include all the notable proponents' viewpoints. Per WP:PlotGonzales John (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gonzales John: no, of course not all but the differences should be described even if they are fringe because the article is WP:SUBPOV. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I must point out that what TechBear is saying violates some of the most basic principles of Wikipedia, especially WP:NPOV. Let me be clear: we do not say "here is the theory", not in this article nor elsewhere. NPOV explicitly states that both fringe theories and minority viewpoints should clearly be indicated as such. We do not try to create any false balance between proponents and opponents where no such balance exists. Virtually every competent academic agree that the moonlandings happened, that the earth isn't flat, that Caesar was a real person, that Jesus was a real person, that the earth wasn't created in seven days, that the moon has never been split etc. We can present all of these conspiracy theories, but not pretend they have some academic credibility. Once again, this is not my opinion, it's a main rule at Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Reply The NPOV guideline says that if the article is about A, and there is a related fringe theory B, then B should not be given undue weight. That does not apply here, as the article is about B, not A. If the article is about the fringe theory, then the non-neutral approach is to use the article as a platform for ridiculing it. TechBear | Talk |

Contributions 03:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not using it as a platform to ridicule it, I was just putting in the scholars' opinions and consensus. I never seriously put in something that says "this theory is utter nonsense" ("conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean a nonsensical theory); since that is the case, one might conclude that you're just defensive of the Christ myth theory since you feel that I'm ridiculing it even though I'm clearly not.Gonzales John (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not mean that this article should present the case that there was no such person as Jesus. It " means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The idea that Jesus never existed (the "Christ myth theory") has zero support among ancient historians in reliable sources and the article must make that clear. However I haven't looked at this article for two years, I got so sick of arguing about this and related articles and having to go to AN/I and WP:DRN and participate in RF/C's over and over and over that I took a two year wikibreak. Looking at the article again it seems pretty good to me. I think it is right to discuss the historical proponents of the idea and to include the crucial quotes from the two most authoritative sources who have bothered to refute this fringe theory, Ehrman and Michael Grant, which it does. Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There is still too much unnecessary info here, and the section of the proponents remains over five times the size of the criticisms sections;the criticisms of many of the proponents aren't even mentioned. And the consensus definitely isn't made clear yet; the opposite probably is, even.Gonzales John (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This article should be split between two articles;

• Christ myth theory
• The History of Christ myth theory

There is an overwhelming amount of history in this article, which has no relevance to the modern debate and would make a substantial history article on its own. Then after moving the historical content, this article should be reduced to a stub and rewritten per WP:consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that the new sentence that opens the article "The Christ myth theory is a hypothesis that claims that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" is an improvement on the previous one "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism[1]) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed." I think "mythicism" does need to be explained in this context. "A person who believes the Christ myth theory is generally taken lowly by experts" should be rephrased, "taken lowly" is not very good English -not taken seriously, maybe. Also not really convinced of the necessity of removing so much material on historical proponents of the theory. At some point an important quote in the criticism section was moved to a footnote - John Dominic Crossan "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." I think that should be in the main body of the article since it states clearly and simply why historians do not accept the Christ myth theory, instead of just,as now, having a number of quotes from authorities that dismiss the theory without giving any reason.Smeat75 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm against the wholesale changes made by Gonzales John. I think there's some merit in the idea of pruning down the history section, but not as drastically as the proposed edit does. It's also fine to include more on the scholarly reception of the CMT, but any such additions should concentrate on *why* scholars think the CMT is loopy. The Ehrman quote that's at the end of the lede in Gonzales John's preferred version doesn't explain why an advocate of the CMT would have trouble getting an academic job, and so isn't that helpful in telling readers why scholars have such a low opinion on the CMT. So, I think Gonzales John raises some good points, but I am against the particular edits he has made. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I think Akhilleus is right both to reverse the premature closure and to restore the old version until the RfC has been closed. Having said that, I support the proposed changes. If the only reason to oppose the pruning of the history section is that it is drastic, then let it be drastic. There's nothing wrong is a drastic removal of bad content, and I agree with all those who think that the content is bad. As several users have pointed out, it reads more like a long history section of the theory, and in large part by disresputed non-scholars proven wrong decades ago. I think the proposed changes give a stronger focus on the actual CMT. Where I agree with Akhilleus is that a stronger case should indeed be made for why scholars reject CMT. It's fine to say that virtually all scholars reject the CMT (as they do, and as we source), but at least a summary of why they reject it would be suitable. Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". (Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner's. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.) Including this, maybe along with a summary of the evidence, should be enough.Gonzales John (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to eliminate the historical information, which can be valuable to scholars, so long as the article continues to clearly present the picture that these are no longer given credence. However, to achieve better balance, I would suggest grouping the objections to Jesus' existence thematically, rather than by author, and including in each section the chief critiques of the objection. Authors who presented similar theses would not need separate space, reducing the bulk of the article considerably. Do others agree? Clean Copy^talk 10:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I do.Gonzales John (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree to this approach, provided that the "chief critiques" must present actual argument, and not just a blanket statement of unsubstantiated rejection from a (potentially biased) critic. I think it would be useful for the readers to know the difference between a rejection based on evidence vs a rejection based on personal religious beliefs etc. Wdford (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wdford (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC) , Bart Ehrman is an agnostic, so he can't possibly be biased here.Gonzales John (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose User:Gonzales John edits as non-neutral. Christ Myth is a minority theory, but is not pseudohistory, pathological or crackpot. Some formulations are theories about conspiracy, others are not. I do not support deletion of large amounts of relevant sourced material, but would not oppose creation of a new 'history of Christ Myth Theory' to contain much of this information. JerryRussell (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw support for new 'history' article based on notability concerns for stand-alone article on that topic. JerryRussell (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussellI never said that CMT is a crackpot; I just made it clear that many prominent scholars, Christian or otherwise, say that most competent scholars don't take it seriously anymore.Gonzales John (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply As discussed below, I have found through research in the archives, that User:Gonzales John and others have quietly overturned the outcome of a 2014 DRN proceeding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_89#Christ_myth_theory, in order to redefine Christ Myth Theory as equivalent to 'Jesus Denial', the thesis that Jesus' non-existence can be factually proven. 'Jesus denial' is a non-tenable hypothesis not held by any notable modern CMT advocate. Also, Gonzales John's edits remove sections on Thomas Thompson and Richard Carrier which were earlier upheld by consensus of an RfC.Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_56#RfC_about_the_length_of_sections_on_Thompson.2C_Carrier_and_others I appreciate that Gonzales John says he doesn't think CMT is 'crackpot' and as such, WP:FRINGE applies but WP:PSCI does not, and CMT should not be compared to flat-earth theory. Most versions of CMT are not theories about conspiracy, either. JerryRussell (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I have found one more relevant not-that-old RFC, Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_53#Requests_for_comments.2C_moving_forward from Feb. 2015, which ended with a consensus list of CMT proponents to be kept. The edits proposed by Gonzales John constitute another mass cutback, without any specific discussion of individual proponents and why they need to be eliminated. JerryRussell (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussell, however, prominent scholars have compared it to pseudoscience, and that goes to show just how much scholarly consensus thinks of it.Gonzales John (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

GJ, your previous edits denounced this as a 'conspiracy theory'. What is your actual position: does WP:PSCI apply, or not? Your earlier edits seem to indicate you think it should, and so does this comment. It should be obvious, however, that a few scholars putting up a straw man and then calling it pseudoscience, does not make a scholarly consensus. JerryRussell (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

CMT is not exactly a pseudoscientific theory (which just might suggest that we should not treat it exactly as one), but it is a fringe theory since most competent scholars don't accept it, and according to an unbiased, prominent scholar it prevents people from getting a job at a religion-analyzing academic department the same way the pseudoscientific creationist view prevents one from getting a job at a bona fide biology department.Gonzales John (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

GJ, I believe you're quoting Ehrman here. What makes you say he is unbiased? I'm not debating his qualifications or reliability as a source, but he was trained at Princeton Bible Seminary, teaches in a Religious Studies department, and obviously has a certain fondness for Christian theology in spite of his claims to have become an atheist. I think there's clearly a bias there.

Ehrman is mostly correct that CMT advocates can't get jobs at Religious Studies departments. But, fundamentalist Christians who are also creation scientists can! What does that tell you about who is pseudo-scientific, and who isn't?

Your statement that we "just might" not treat CMT as pseudoscience, is rather enigmatic as to your intentions. What are you really saying here -- does WP:PSCI apply, or not? There is a huge difference in the consequences: WP:FRINGE is for respected minorities, which should be described neutrally in source voice, and then criticized by the majority view also in source voice. JerryRussell (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Or, GJ, look at WP:FRINGE/PS for the difference between 'pseudoscience' and an 'alternative theoretical formulation'. The claim that Historical Jesus certainly never existed, might be 'pseudohistory'. But, the claim that Christianity originated as some sort of pagan religion that later invented or adopted a historical or historicized founder, is more of an alternative formulation. JerryRussell (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jerryl, you no doubt mean well but if you think Ehrman has a bias for Christianity, the only possible explanation is that you haven't read his books. 19/20 books he write are explicitly aimed at disproving key Christian beliefs, and he spends a lot of time debating Christian apologists. I know that if one takes a sufficiently extremist position, one can accuse anyone of bias (some far-right extremists in Israel accuse Netanyahu of having a Palestinian bias, and that is comparable) but since I don't see an extremist view in your writings, I can only assume a lack of knowledge of the main part (~95%) of Ehrman's work. Much can be said about him, but certainly not that he has a Christian bias. Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

2

To respond to JerryRussell's comment above, I don't think there's any need for hand-wringing about whether the CMT is pseudoscience or not, because I don't think there's a difference in the way pseudoscience and fringe theories are supposed to be treated on Wikipedia. In every article the mainstream view must be made clear; in this article it should be made clear that most academic experts on early Christianity regard the CMT as quirky at best, and some describe it in much the same way as historians describe moon landing conspiracy theories. I also think people are not quite understanding why Ehrman said a CMT proponent would be unlikely to be employed in a religion department. It's not because departments impose some sort of ideological or confessional test, it's because to buy into the CMT you have to treat the evidence in ways that don't conform to standard scholarly methods. If you deny evolution, you're not just turning your back on a body of evidence but on a widely accepted way of working with that evidence; methods in history and religious studies may not be scientific, exactly, (which is why I'd personally shy away from the label "pseudoscience" here), but there are accepted methods, and CMT proponents are by and large turning their back upon them. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Ehrman's bias is not 'Christian' per se, certainly not fundamentalist, but there is a worldview associated with being a Princeton theology school graduate and professor of religious studies. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I haven't read a lot of Ehrman but I've read 'Did Jesus Exist' and most of 'How Jesus Became God', and I think he has a bias, just like most anybody else in the world does.

Thanks for saying you don't see an extremist bias in my writing, but actually I do have a POV which I've confessed on-Wiki, as the author of the article on Caesar's Messiah. Based on what the definition of CMT is, I'm trying to decide if Roman Origins theory belongs in the category or not.

Akhilleus, I could be mistaken, but my impression is that if we as editors determine that something is pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory, based on consensus of the sources, we're supposed to describe it as such in Wiki voice. Whereas if it's an alternative theoretical formulation, it is described in source voice. For an example of what happens to a theorist that's clearly designated as pseudohistory by Wiki editors, look at David Irving and I'm not saying that the treatment is inappropriate for him, I'm saying that CMT is not in the same category. JerryRussell (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation bias viz. Bias - as in an inclination towards something, or a predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, or predilection.

• Ehrman is the poster child for confirmation bias in regards to "Jesus Historicity theory" viz. "Jesus Ahistoricity theory". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

What makes you say that? He is one of the most reliable scholarly sources, and is an agnostic himself. He definitely doesn't have any pro-Christian bias, so nothing would make him biased when it comes to the CMT.Gonzales John (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation bias: a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

• Lataster lays out all his errors. - Lataster, Raphael (November 12, 2015). Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists. ISBN 1514814420. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't follow all this but generally speaking TechBear is wrong and Gonzales John is right. The "neutral" way to describe CMT is that it is fringe. The neutral way to describe astrology is that it is pseudoscience. WP is about the mainstream view, and the mainstream view says that CMT is fringe. Therefore, WP says that CMT is fringe. We have no choice. We're just editors. No one cares what we think or what "the truth" is. If the mainstream view is wrong, then we are honor bound to be wrong, too, in exactly the same way. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan Tweet, I'm puzzled by your statement. Where did TechBear say CMT is not WP:FRINGE and how does the existing article fail to explain mainstream views? Since everybody is quoting Ehrman here, you might be interested to know that he said "I think Wells -- and Price, and several other mythicists -- do deserve to be taken seriously, even if their claims are in the end dismissed." Wells and Price are currently the mainstay of the article, but under Gonzales John's re-write of the lede, we would no longer be able to discuss them, since by G J's definition they are not mythicists. JerryRussell (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Wells, Price, and Carrier have each described the CMT as the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Gonzales John's rewrite of the first sentence is quite faithful to these writers' summary of the Christ myth theory! (It may be helpful to remember that what works as a soundbite-type summary, as one might do in the first sentence of a long article, can be significantly expanded and nuanced in subsequent sentences and paragraphs...) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• The current definition is consistent with a similar definition given by Ehrman and also Doherty: Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12, ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." further quoting as authoritative the fuller definition provided by Earl Doherty in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii: it is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why the current lead sentence is a reasonable beginning. But the shorter version, most recently proposed by Gonzales John, is consistent with definitions given by Price, Wells, Carrier, Ehrman, and many others, so people shouldn't be writing as if that version of the lead would exclude Wells, Price, or any other mythicist. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, if CMT is defined as the idea that Jesus didn't exist, then we would have to qualify the lede by noting that modern figures such as Price, Wells and Carrier implicitly reject CMT by admitting that historical Jesus might have existed, but if so, he had little or nothing to do with the origin of Christianity, or Christ of the gospels. But in spite of such admissions, Price, Wells and Carrier are widely regarded as adherents of CMT. So it winds up being a round-about way of saying what the existing lede says. JerryRussell (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am seeing some merit in the idea that CMT was defined in the 19th century as the idea that Jesus didn't exist. But if Wells, Carrier, Price, and Doherty have all renounced that idea and admitted that historical Jesus might have existed, do we need a new name for their theory, and thus an entirely new article? Historical Jesus Agnosticism, perhaps? JerryRussell (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

JerryRussell, you seem to be missing that Price, Wells, and Carrier all refer to the CMT in such terms as "the hypothesis that Jesus never really existed" and regard themselves as mythicists. If, when they're being precise, they say that it's likely or highly probable that Jesus didn't exist, but they're not absolutely certain, they do not "implicitly reject" the CMT—they regard it as more probable than any alternative. That's still advocating the CMT! At one point I think Carrier says he thinks the odds of Jesus existing are 1 in 12,000, which really doesn't sound like he has much doubt. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, 'being precise' is important to modern CMT theorists, and it should be important to us in formulating the lede. CMT was originally formulated in the 19th century in reaction to a Historical Jesus model from Strauss which was very primitive compared to modern Historical Jesus theses. Price, Wells and Carrier don't want to divorce themselves from 19th century CMT but they recognize a need for more care in formulation of a modern statement of the thesis.

I understand that Thompson rejects being classified as CMT because of this very same issue, and here's a quote from Brodie: I could never say, in crude terms, that Jesus Christ never existed.... the crude statement of non-existence seemed grossly inadequate. It may be true, but it is so far from the whole truth that it is a radical distortion. [7]

I agree with Akhilleus, virtually every mythicist tend to support the idea that Jesus never existed. The idea that the historical Jesus was different from the Jesus of the gospels is an entirely different theory. Actually, that's the established majority view in academia, the view argued by a long number of scholars (including Ehrman) who completely reject CMT. Even though the only thing Carrier's (1 in 12,000) proves is that Carrier would never have passed an introductory Bayesian course, it's clear that Carrier is very much favouring the idea Jesus never existed. Price basically argues the entire gospels are just retellings of stories in the old testament. I don't which mythicist in the last 20 years (and that's what matters - we can talk about the earlier inspirations, but science always evolves and a view nobody is holding is not very relevant) we would offend by saying that they entertain the idea that Jesus never existed. It seems perfectly factual and neutral. Jeppiz (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, I agree that CMT theorists are willing to entertain the idea that historical Jesus didn't exist. On the other hand, it seems like it wouldn't bother them much if he did. Carrier is arguing for a range of 1/12000 (or more) at one extreme, to a figure of 1/3 at the other. I don't get the feeling he would be much offended by anyone arguing for the 1/3 figure. And considering how far the mainstream has moved towards the mythicist position, I find myself wondering if our debate here is missing the point of what the disagreement is really about.

I'm concerned that this discussion has wandered into TLDR territory for the closing editor. So as much as I feel it's worthwhile, and could lead to a new evolution in the article, I wonder if we should break it off for now? JerryRussell (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, rather we should close it; the general consensus in this discussion is that the drasticality of the trimming of the historical section is irrelevant, since most of the content to be removed is quite bad, and that the edit in question does not violate the article's neutrality.112.211.194.145 (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

IP112, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor or admin to close the RFC. Normally this would be done after 30 days. So, please be patient. JerryRussell (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that this article's chronological structure is totally appropriate for the subject, but the actual criticisms that developed should be worked into the narrative, rather than just having a list of everyone who wrote anything in favor of the idea from 1795 onward followed by a collection of contemporary quotes asserting that nobody takes it seriously anymore. Either way, someone's going to have to dig up those historical criticisms or the article is going to be weak. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A chronological structure is just irrelevant and repetitive history, this article should contain three sections that are actually relevant and not repetitive.

Very roughly:

I. There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the bible. All external evidence for his existence, even if it were fully authentic (though much of it isn’t), cannot be shown to be independent of the Gospels, or Christian informants relying on the Gospels. None of it can be shown to independently corroborate the Gospels as to the historicity of Jesus. Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives.

II. The bible is about a fictional supernatural character named "Jesus Christ" from which a historical Jesus can not be derived or distilled.

III. Enumeration of each unique theory (some perhaps requiring their notable exception from the previous sections I. & II.) on the origin of Jesus in relation to the founding of Christianity. Prioritized by scholarly weight to avoid repetition of similar theories. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No thanks; against the scholarly consensus of, in Ehrman's words, the real experts. Also, this comment is quite off track from the discussion, and oversimplifies all the anti-existence conspiracy theories.Gonzales John (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your "scholarly consensus" is comprised entirely of Christian scholars. They are hardly likely to look with favor upon any idea that strikes at the very heart of their most deeply held beliefs. Those beliefs may be sincerely held but it disqualifies those holding them from being able to be objective when considering whether or not the key figure in those beliefs is mythical or not. The lack of independent corroborating evidence for the biblical stories is fatal to claims of a scholarly consensus that Jesus is not mythical. What do non Christian scholars say about this? We should be seeking out those views, if they can be founď, rather than parroting the statements of non impartial writers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

("My consensus"? Haha.) Ehrman is an agnostic. Here is what he says:

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". (Ehrman, Bart (2011). Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. HarperCollins. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6.)

There you go.Gonzales John (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

IP 96 says :"There is no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the bible...Not one single item of evidence. Regardless of why no independent evidence survives (it does not matter the reason), no such evidence survives." Nick Thorne says "Your "scholarly consensus" is comprised entirely of Christian scholars".As I know from experience on this and related pages, the same (incorrect) points are likely to be made by new editors to this page over and over again, that is why I think that it is important to have quotes from historians who could not possibly be called "Christian scholars" in the article, and that they should say why they dismiss the CMT, not just "no one takes it seriously" or such like comments. There is an important quote from Ehrman at the article Historicity of Jesus "Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus" that really sums it all up, that is it. That quote should be in the article."Mythicists" will try to dismiss the Tacitus and Josephus passages as worthless, but historians do not. At some point in this article I believe there were other quotes from classical historians (not "Christian scholars") but they have been removed, I think. Also in the Historicity of Christ article - "Leading historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee". Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain." [8] Other quotes from *classical historians* -" Graeme Clarke, senior lecturer at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Western Australia....(asserts) "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian who would even twinge with doubt about the existence of Jesus Christ. The documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." "Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University"...(says)"Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance." "Mythicists" say there is no evidence for Jesus' existence, people who have studied ancient history say the evidence is "overwhelming". As I said earlier, I also think the Crossan quote should go back into the main text of the article, not just a footnote. The Grant quote is very important, yes, but here again those of us who have been involved with this page over time will be aware that it will be repeatedly challenged by editors who will say it is out of date, so the article does need more than just that.Smeat75 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realise that IP96's first point is a quote from Richard Carrier. All the more reason why quotes from historians need to say why they reject the idea that "there is no evidence for Jesus' existence", not just that they do.Smeat75 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne, Secular scholars Bart Ehrman and professor of religious studies Zeba A. Crook and others do assert the historicity of Jesus (with the notable caveat that some might be fired/punished otherwise). However, there is no consensus on the historicity of Jesus that allows for a proper definition.

• For example:

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

• Rather it is:

1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus spoke.
3. Jesus was crucified.

"As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing." (Tom Dykstra (2015). Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship. The Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (JOCABS). 8 (1): 29.) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, User:112.211.194.145 has closed this RfC twice claiming that there's a consensus. I see no such consensus, and I find it a bit odd that an IP user who has made all of four edits to Wikipedia--two to this talkpage, and two to the article--is taking it upon him/herself to close the RfC. So I'm reverting the closure, and the IP user should leave it to someone else to close the RfC when consensus becomes apparent. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: I agree. I do not see consensus to remove this multiple times. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For about a month now, there have been extensive discussions about how this article should look. Parallel to these discussions, there have been close to 100 edits to the page, and these edits rarely reflect the discussions. This is not the proper way to do things. We have a list of things that many users have commented upon, and we have not yet reached consensus on a single thing. The proper way to edit Wikipedia is to discuss, reach a consensus for changes, and implement those changes. If we have a talk page filled with discussions and an article page that does not reflect those discussions, it all becomes rather pointless. I would like to encourage everybody, but especially 96.29.176.92 and JerryRussell to refrain from editing until we have reached a consensus. I have restored the article to its format prior to the long list of changes. This is not necessarily a preference for that version nor an opposition to all changes that have taken place, but a reminder that edits should reflect the discussions, not be disconnected from them and not pre-empt them. Instead of relentless edits, what about making a concise list of the outstanding topics. It seems there is a general consensus for moving the article in a more academic direction, with more focus on what CMT is, based on WP:RS, and less focus on both individuals and non-experts. What we need it better edits, not more edits. I am very close to bringing this topic to arbitration, as discussions seems to go absolutely nowhere and the article is as bad as ever. Jeppiz (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan Tweet reviewed this article at your request. Since then there have been 60 revisions that you find objectionable. Is that correct ? You have also restored several WP:Synth violations in this process. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I really think the "criticism" section is inadequate as it does not give the reasons why historians reject this theory, only that they do. It was better in previous versions a couple of years ago but has been cut down too much.Smeat75 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not in criticism but for the record of the current discussion on RVed content. There has been "1" minor edit to the the "criticism" section. ==Criticism==. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, Do you have any objection to restoring "§Pauline epistles" as this section was clearly created per consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Of the current discussion on RVed content, 36 revisions were to five sections:

‎‎

• Pauline epistles: 16
• Robert M. Price: 8
• Tom Harpur: 6
• ‎Thomas L. Thompson: 3
• Richard Carrier: 2
• George Albert Wells: 1 96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz wrote: It seems there is a general consensus for moving the article in a more academic direction, with more focus on what CMT is, based on WP:RS, and less focus on both individuals and non-experts. I would agree this is the general consensus, but with the important caveat that this is a field in which expertise needs to be construed broadly.

Also, I certainly had the perception that the Pauline epistle section was being created in accordance with consensus. I'm disappointed if you don't feel that this was moving the article in the direction that we've been discussing. Could you please explain what objections you have to that section, and why you say the article is not getting better? JerryRussell (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Leave the Pauline Epsitles section - if it needs to be improved, then lets improve it. We cannot blot out any CMT proponent who is not a mainstream professor, because mainstream professors are by definition not CMT proponents. We agreed to remove the biographical material, which is being done. If more is needed, then proceed. We agreed to clarify the criticism section, so that instead of merely listing a range of POV parrots all stating that CMT is rejected by all POV parrots, we should include WHY the mainstream believes a historical Jesus did exist. That has not yet happened. I will take the responsibility to do the first draft thereof. Wdford (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96 and Wdford, I really appreciate your support and your edits this morning, but I've decided to revert them. This is in respect to Jeppiz' request that we stop editing and await the development of a real consensus. Jeppiz is threatening to take us to Arbcom. If he does that, our conduct needs to be above reproach. We are here to build an encyclopedia in accordance with Wikipedia goals and policies. WP:RFC says: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.

I thought the edits we've been making were non-controversial and in accordance with the emerging consensus. It seems that perhaps Jeppiz doesn't agree with any of it. So I suggest we hold off until the RfC is closed, and then resume normal editing. Please? JerryRussell (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• OK, the current talk before us is:

§Request for Comment

§New article section: Pauline Epistles

§21st century proponents

How many days until the RFC expires & what section edits should be avoided. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, I think we should just stop editing until the RfC closes. It was opened August 14, and RFC's normally stay open for at least 30 days, so we're looking at about a 10 day wait.

For the record, I've just looked at the edit history and in spite of a best faith effort, I didn't succeed in reverting all the edits that you and Wdford made this morning. There were a bunch of our earlier edits to the sections on various modern proponents that have survived all the back-and-forth. These were largely detail edits to provide clarifications, fix sourcing and eliminate synth problems, and I'm totally puzzled how Jeppiz could object to any of that. But if he does, we should probably revert all that stuff too. Easy enough to bring it back after the RfC. JerryRussell (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have not voted on the RFC, just commented. Do you oppose or support the RFC ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but which RfC are we waiting on? I am only aware of the RfC on the non-neutral deletions made by Gonzales John - which should not need to lock down all editing on the article. Is there another RfC that I missed?

I'm also not sure why Jeppiz is threatening arbitration - I thought we had agreed to focus on what CMT is, rather than focus on individuals - although it is obvious (to me) that the CMT is whatever its proponents say it is (and not what its detractors claim it to be). We also agreed that the Criticism section must report WHY the mainstream rejects the CMT, not merely list a series of claims. Since we have consensus for all this, why can we not implement the necessary edits?

What are we waiting for really ? Wdford (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, I strongly oppose the RFC, and I'd recommend that you also oppose it. Strictly speaking, in the RFC, TechBear simply said"I am asking for comments... as to the direction this article should take." That's pretty open-ended, and I can understand why it's hard to see a consensus, because it's so unclear what the question is. As Wdford says, the RFC seems to be in reaction to the massive deletions and non-neutral edits to the lede made by Gonzales John. Those edits could be construed as extending across the entire article, there was very little untouched by GJ's knife. So as per wp:RFC that I quoted above, I think we're honor bound to respect Jeppiz' request to stop editing until the RFC closes. Gonzales John has been respecting the admonition to stop editing.

I framed my answer to the RFC as "Oppose Gonzales John's edits as non-neutral" which I hope is a clear stance.

Jeppiz explains at his talk page here: fixing_Christ_myth_theory what he thinks is going on at this page. Without naming names, he states that certain editors are 'conspiracy theorists' who 'scorn policies'. So he thinks it's a conduct issue, and that's why he is threatening to go to Arbcom. JerryRussell (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz has for years been calling for the editors at this article to obey the policy of WP:RS, which in his interpretation means allowing only mainstream classical history professors to be cited on this article. The point which Jeppiz flatly refuses to get, is that this is not an article about mainstream classical history. The EXPERTS on mainstream classical history are the mainstream classical history professors. The EXPERTS on the Christ Myth Theory are the CMT theorists, who are not usually themselves mainstream classical history professors. The issue of "who is a reliable source on the CMT" has therefore been argued here for years. The issue is obviously further clouded by religious emotion, where some of the CMT supporters are inclined to propose in return that any author who is themselves Christian should be automatically disqualified as "reliable".

At the Historicity of Jesus article we cite the mainstream classical history professors, and we make it clear to the reader that the mainstream historicity argument is based on three disputed mentions in two non-Biblical sources, plus some subjective deductions - which people like Ehrman describe as "abundant and overwhelming evidence". Nobody has a major problem with telling the truth at that article. At the CMT article we should similarly cite the experts on the topic, who are the CMT proponents - some of whom are recognised scholars and some of whom are total nut-jobs. To allow detractors like Ehrman etc to define the CMT (which Ehrman does incorrectly) is not encyclopediac at all. The "other side" (whom Jeppiz describes as conspiracy theorists) claim that the weight of the article should be focused on the topic of the article, ie the theory itself in its many variations, and that it is sufficient to mention that mainstream scholars disagree without trying to bludgeon a reader with sheer weight of parrots.

None of this is recent, and none of this is going to be solved by the RfC. This is NOT a conduct issue - although Jeppiz is not alone in trying to frame it that way - this is about the interpretation of "who is a reliable source on the CMT"? I would argue that the people who know the most about the CMT are the people who proposed the theory in the first place. Jeppiz disagrees. Which Wikiforum resolves policy interpretation issues? Wdford (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wdford, of course you're right that this has been going on for years, and I'm the newcomer who has just wandered into the room. I've only been editing at Wiki since about March, so I'm far from an expert about the various dispute resolution forums.

I agree it's not a conduct issue, but let's not turn it into one by violating the policy (or is it a guideline, or an essay? I'm not sure) against doing contentious edits in the middle of the RfC over clear objections from Jeppiz. That's as much of a strategy as I have at the moment.

About RS, I wonder if we could reach a compromise with Jeppiz that this article should be primarily based on the very best RS available, but that other sources may be briefly mentioned in summaries, with links to sub-articles if they exist? I can certainly agree that there are some problems with the article. The history / list of proponents does include some items that might be undue weight, and could be substantially cut back. My preferred strategy would be to create the new, topically organized sections first (such as the one on the Pauline Epistles) and then do the cutting. JerryRussell (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

With no topical organization, you get the situation I found with Price, of editors mucking up his real argument. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why hasn't anybody mentioned this RFC from Feb. 2015, Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_53#Requests_for_comments.2C_moving_forward? That RFC ended in a consensus list of proponents to be included in the article. Speaking of talk that goes nowhere: what's the point of having an RFC, if its outcome is so easily forgotten? 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

We've talked about the DRN process last 2014 that settled on a definition of CMT. I understand you were opposed to the consensus, and I think I understand your reasons. But I'm not sure I understand what you'd like to have instead, and what problems have been caused by the 2014 version of the lede? JerryRussell (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

My main problem with this article is that some editors are determined to misrepresent what the CMT actually is, so that they can more easily demolish it. The argument about the definition long ago was precisely about that point. I can live with the resultant compromise, although it is still not strictly correct. Some CMT proponents claim that "No human Jesus ever existed, the entire cult is pure myth from the ground up". This contradicts the fragile "evidence" on which the historicity argument is based, and thus is contradicted by most historians and scholars. However other CMT proponents allow that "A human Jesus may well have existed in that time period, but if so he had little or nothing to do with Christianity, and the rest of the Christian cult is based on pure myth". This is very close to the mainstream position, which fact threatens the easily-demolished straw-man they have been trying to establish. Part of their attack is therefore to claim that only mainstream historians are qualified to define the CMT, even though the mainstream historians in the main are trying to demolish the CMT at the same time, and that the people who actually proposed the CMT are not qualified to define their own theory. Wdford (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about if the lede goes something like this: The Christ Myth Theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, mythicism, or Jesus ahistoricity theory) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. However, many modern mythicists admit that Historical Jesus may have existed, but if so, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the Gospels.

I wonder if anyone would see this as an improvement over the existing 2014 consensus lede? JerryRussell (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I would not see that as an improvement. I have already quoted on this page what leading mythicist Robert Price said when he was emailed by an editor during the (loooooonnnnnngg) discussions held about this issue here two years ago -" Price said ""I'd say the CMT is the position that no historical Jesus existed. The issue of "probably" vs "certainly" is not built into the theory; rather it is a question of how firmly one holds to the theory." I would point out that Raphael Lataster, who you talk about below, has had two books published, one called "There Was No Jesus" and the other "Jesus Did Not Exist". That is the Christ myth theory, like Wdford "I can live with the resultant compromise" of what is now in the lead but I actually would prefer it to say "The CMT is the idea that no historical Jesus existed". I am not going to try to change it though and I really think it would be wisest to let the definition stand as it is.Smeat75 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just as a cautionary note, Lataster may of been highlighting the claims of "Jesus atheism" proponents in those books. Per a recent Youtube interview he noted his advocacy for the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Smeat75, I'm also fine with the existing lede, but there seems to be this simmering discontent about it. Gonzales John had changed the lede, and then Akhilleus and Jeppiz got in this huge argument with me above in the RFC, justifying GJ's version. So I'm looking for something that might satisfy everybody.

How about: The Christ Myth Theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, mythicism, or Jesus ahistoricity theory) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. However, many modern advocates do not hold firmly to the theory. On the contrary, they argue that Historical Jesus may have existed, but if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the Gospels. JerryRussell (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the point of trying to change the lead right now; finding agreement on something different is too difficult. I don't have a problem with retaining the current version of the first sentence. I maintain that Gonzales John's version of the first sentence is accurate, as the quote above from Robert Price above indicates. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Leave the lead as is - it is more complete than Gonzales John's version. Price is not the only proponent, and his version of the CMT is not the only version. Wdford (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

CMT is the home for all Jesus theories not accepted as "Historicity of Jesus" theories by mainstream historical Jesus proponents, this should be made as clear as possible. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The CMT (also known as the <alt labels list>) refers to several theories for the origin of Jesus in relation to the origin of Christianity. The hypothesis for these diverse theories include: the hypothesis that Jesus never existed, or if he did exist, no meaningful historical verification is possible; the hypothesis that Jesus did exist but had virtually nothing to do with the origin of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels; the hypothesis that Christianity started, just like all the other Mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world; the hypothesis that Christianity started as a variation of Gnosticism; etc.. These so called "Christ Myth" theories contradict the mainstream historical view, which concludes that Jesus was a Jewish religious reformer. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead could really use some clear information about how mythicists think Christianity started. It mentions euhemerism, but there's a lot more detail to offer. Paul and others imagined Jesus as a spirit, and by the time Mark was written, he was re-imagined as a man. Anyway, that's the story that's being hinted at in the lead. Let's make it clear. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was a consensus to wait for the RfC to be concluded before we made major edits to the article. Also I think it is too simplistic to say "historians discredit" ..." virtually all of the Gospel of John". A lot of historians of classical history do not specifically address the Gospel of John but make it very clear that it is a historical fact as much as any other that Jesus existed,the subject of this article,due to multiple attestation in ancient sources. Discussion of the historicity of the Gospel of John belongs in Historical reliability of the Gospels.Smeat75 (talk) 02:53, 5 Septer 2016 (UTC)

If you want to assert that Christianity started, just like all the other Mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world:

1. Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements.
2. Monotheism: transforming polytheism into monotheism (via henotheism).
3. Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults.
4. Cosmopolitanism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all “brothers”); you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it.

All four points are important for the origin of Christianity.

• For the origin of Jesus in relation to the origin of Christianity then it is "Syncretism". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Many mythicist positions accept the historical existence of a human being who called himself Jesus. (ref. Dodd, Charles Harold (1938). History and the Gospel. Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 16–17. ...a religion may be based upon, the teachings of a sage or holy man, without any especial reference to the events of his life [...] in the period to which the origins of Christianity are to be assigned, ...were groups which had relations with the Jewish religion, and some of these last came to identify their Saviour-god with the Jewish Messiah, and created for him a mythical embodiment in a figure bearing the cult-name 'Jesus', derived from a Hebrew word meaning 'salvation'. Or alternatively, they seized upon the report of an obscure Jewish holy-man bearing this name, and arbitrarily attached the 'cult-myth' to him.) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The RFC bot has moved our RFC off the active list. Should we post a request for closure at Wikipedia:ANRFC? It looks like a long backlog there. Would it be considered improper to try to recruit someone to do the closure? @Akhilleus:, @Ian.thomson:, any suggestions? JerryRussell (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Rved bot here and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, now close as normal. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC) & strike 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the Christ Myth Theory really a fringe theory? How does one define a theory to be on the fringes of mainstream? --Ratha K (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Per this article, it is a fringe theory, because it is accepted by a small number of academics in relation to the consensus mainstream theory accepted by most academics. This relationship can be altered if:

• The mainstream consensus fragments into multiple theories.
• Many more academics start holding this theory until it becomes the new mainstream consensus. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a source for this, i.e. "small number of academics"? --Ratha K (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that (academics & science are similar in this context) then per Fringe theory, A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters. And per Fringe science, Some theories that were once regarded as fringe science, but were eventually accepted as mainstream science, are: Plate tectonics, Heliocentrism, and The Big Bang theory. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand what fringe theory means. I am trying to ascertain whether this is an opinion or a fact. --Ratha K (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ratha K, up above on this talk page is a section Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Most_scholars_DO_agree. including a collapsed box entitled "citations". If you open the accordion, there are quotes from many scholars denouncing Christ Myth theory, as well as quotes from the most prominent mythicists agreeing that they are a tiny and beleaguered minority among scholars.

I think one problem is a confusion about the definition of mythicism. Most of the criticisms are insisting that Jesus existed, while most mythicists admit that maybe he did. Getting beyond that, mythicists question whether historical Jesus had anything much to do with the development of early Christianity, while the dominant view is that Jesus the Christ did indeed set in motion that chain of events that created the religion. At the moment I don't have references at my fingertips to demonstrate this, it's just an OR observation on my part. JerryRussell (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the summation, Jerry. After spending about 45 minutes going through the current and archived discussions, I realize my question have already been asked and addressed in far greater depth several times over. I have to say though that the current page is a very poor shadow of the [May 2013] version, IMO.--Ratha K (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problem here is that neither side of the argument has much to go on. Non Christian references to a Jesus are so rare and disputed that CMT is at one end of a spectrum of possibilities. I would call it a minority rather than a fringe view.Charles (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

According to Ehrman, there are two experts in Bible scholarship/classics who hold to Christ Myth Theory and neither of the two has a tenured professorship in the field. If there were several full professors defending it, we would call it a minority view. Minority in this case means "many scholars, but not most". Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt it's a fringe view, as can be deducted by some of the citations listed above. And it's going to be a long time, if ever, that the CMT achieves even in the barest sense a view which can be classified as "minority". At this point, its kind of like expecting the theory that we didn't land on the moon, or that the moon is made of green cheese, to become a minority viewpoint. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that more Greco-Roman historians do not bump Humpty Dumpty down. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Add those holding the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint:

• Avalos
• Droge
• Lataster
• Noll

96.29.176.92 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion we should be paring down the proponents, not adding more. Of the four people mentioned above I think only Lataster has significant publications about Jesus' ahistoricity, so I'd add him. Do the others have academic publications on the CMT? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively: List the holders in summary of the viewpoints: "Jesus agnosticism" viz. "Jesus atheism". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering how CMT detractors are always trying to drive home the point that only a tiny minority of qualified scholars believe CMT, there's some merit in a list of counter-examples. Avalos has a chapter in "The End of Biblical Studies" called "The Unhistorical Jesus" where he mentions his support for CMT, but his main point is that there has been no progress in Historical Jesus research since Reimarus in ~1778. JerryRussell (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a publication about the CMT, then. Has Avalos published an article or a book about the CMT? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing on his list of selected pubs on his academic web page. But, I did find this little popular homily, where he justifies his agnosticism on the question. Not exactly a heavyweight contribution to the field, but his position is clear. Also, he mentions that he thinks CMT is gaining, not losing, adherents. [9] JerryRussell (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but he says he's not a mythicist: he's an agnostic about historicity. So he explicitly says he doesn't identify himself as a proponent of the theory... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ahah, isn't that exactly what we're debating above? Whether Jesus agnostics are mythicists? To my reading, all modern mythicists except maybe Acharya are agnostics. JerryRussell (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ken Humphreys is also pretty clearly in the 'Jesus Atheist' camp. There are too many other mythicists I haven't read, I shouldn't be making generalizations. But the big names are cautious. JerryRussell (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Helpful who's who list of mythicists at Vridar [10]

mentions that Noll wrote a chapter in Thompson & Varenna, and that Droge allegedly wrote a paper comparing Jesus to Ned Ludd, but Google can't find a copy. IP96, you might take a look at that list and see if there's anyone else you think we're missing. JerryRussell (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• At the Amherst conference in 2008 Droge said publicly that he had no idea whether there was a real Jesus, and gave a presentation using Ned Ludd [...] Droge simply hasn’t published on this [that he has no idea whether there was a real Jesus]. --http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1026#matter 96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I strongly believe that whichever way we proceed, we really need to get away from this practice of listing proponents. I cannot remember seeing any article on any other theory which consists of lists (and autobiographies!) of proponents. This is not the place for that. We're interested only in the ideas of CMT. Of course we will refer them to the people who have put them forward, but not by telling in detail who those people are. Adding a list of CMT proponents also seem very dubious; I don't say it's the attention, but it may come across as an argument of numbers "Look at all these people saying X". In that case, we'd also need to make a list of "All people rejecting X". I really really wish we could get away from this focus on persons and focus on ideas and facts instead. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz is correct in principle. However the problem is that different proponents offer different forms of the CMT - ranging from "Jesus was a complete fabrication" all the way down to "Jesus was a real Jewish preacher but the Christian deity stuff is a fabrication" - which is very close to mainstream thought. The different forms are also not entire separate - they overlap in many respects, and different proponents overlap differently. We might therefore be stuck with "he said this but she said that". An alternative might be to list the ideas, such as "Idea A) Jesus was a myth like Osiris - supported by x y & z. Idea B) Jesus was real but not divine - supported by c d & e. Idea C) etc." However I fully agree that we should delete the biographies of the proponents. Wdford (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz says I cannot remember seeing any article on any other theory which consists of lists (and autobiographies!) of proponents. So I looked around a little, and that's right. And there aren't any comprehensive lists of proponents of other fringe theories, either. But, the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories has a section, towards the end, on proponents. That section doesn't pretend to be comprehensive, but lists some of the most prominent organizations & individuals. There is a link to a sub-article, 9/11 Truth movement, that provides much more information, again without any claim to being comprehensive. My guess is that most proponents who are notable enough to have their own Wiki articles, are linked in one way or another from these pages. Creation Science is mostly about ideas, but it has a history section, and a brief list of prominent proponent organizations. That article is IMO an excellent example of how an obviously fringe idea should be treated according to NPOV, by the way. JerryRussell (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Should the list of Modern proponents be revised to the following:

• George A. Wells
• Thomas L. Thompson
• Thomas L. Brodie
• Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier
• Robert M. Price
• Raphael Lataster

96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC) and update 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC) & strike 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an odd break in our narration, between the 1930's and the 1970's. I guess that's a real break in the literature, and there are no notable mythicists in that period? If so, I agree that instead of breaking the sections by centuries, we could create a 'modern' period beginning in 1970. I would advocate keeping Allegro and bringing back Acharya S, but I understand they might be controversial. JerryRussell (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

We also have Kuhn & Harpur. Both of them are supporting pagan mythicist views similar to Massey and Acharya S. I would support combining Kuhn & Harpur into a single section, and mentioning Acharya S and maybe Freke & Gandy in this section too.JerryRussell (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revision of modern proponents:

1. John Allegro
2. George Albert Wells
3. Alvin Boyd Kuhn
4. Christ Myth proponents in the Soviet Union
5. Tom Harpur
6. Thomas L. Thompson
7. Thomas L. Brodie
8. Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier
9. Robert M. Price

Also see §Lataster below. And I have copied the Allegro and Harpur content to their respective articles. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) & 17:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• First draft

Mainstream historical viewpoint: • 1st century Jew from the Galilee • Had a following/disciples • Was crucified by the Romans • Prefecture of Pontius Pilate (26-36 AD) • Believed to have risen from the dead by followers • Numerous stories attached to his life and deeds afterwards

May have also: • Performed miracles • Spoke/taught on religious matters

96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, I liked the draft of the new criticism section. But I think we'll also need to keep most if not all the material from the old section as well, with all the quotes from experts denouncing the Christ myth theory. JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As to the items of support for Paul's knowledge of Jesus: does anybody know, have historicists explained why they think the few uncharacteristic references to an earthly Jesus in Paul should not be considered late interpolations? JerryRussell (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

More Criticism content can be skimmed from the April 13, 2016 debate Did Jesus Exist? with Craig A. Evans.

And the 2016 YouTube playlist (15 videos) presentation that notes—historical and mythical—Jesus problems, "Did Jesus Exist? Fishers of Evidence"[www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL52hLFfWhVYzkRpKDphFMnavzEETZNBFx] - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC) & update 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A criticism section should be devoted to criticism of the CMT; it should not be a restatement of the mainstream position(s), which should be found at historical Jesus. If the criticism section uses material that was not written in response to the CMT to implicitly or explicitly refute the CMT, that's arguably WP:SYNTH. It certainly can give the reader the impression that the article is a back-and-forth argument rather than a description. In addition, some of the discussion above makes me concerned that a revised criticism section would not be written from a mainstream point of view. For instance, it is not a mainstream view that references to "an earthly Jesus in Paul" are uncharacteristic; the way in which some CMT advocates distinguish between an earthly and heavenly Jesus is quite different than anything found in mainstream treatments of Paul, and interpretations of what Paul says about a historical Jesus are similarly weird. To write a criticism section based on the presumptions of CMT advocates would not be a good move. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

However, if we follow the suggestions of Akhilleus above, then the criticism section will be simply a list of sources all parroting that "Jesus really did exist, everyone believes that", with no actual explanation of WHY this is the mainstream position. That is not really valuable - we may just as well stick to a single sentence that says "most mainstream scholars believe that a real historical Jesus did actually exist in some form, although not necessarily as described in the gospels". Surely it would be more helpful to readers if we add an extra paragraph explaining WHY this is the mainstream position - just a summary, with a link? The mainstream parrots use phrases like "the evidence is abundant, overwhelming even". Surely we should at least mention what that evidence is, so that readers can understand what mainstream parrots consider to be "abundant and overwhelming" evidence? Wdford (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Akhilleus, Should the "mainstream criticism" be derived from the peer reviewed sources of the acknowledged experts on the "Historicity of Jesus" ?

• Dale Allison
• Richard Carrier
• Bart Ehrman
• Amy-Jill Levine
• Geza Vermes 96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Carrier is not an expert - even if his views on the subject were widely accepted, he has no training in mathematics, Hebrew or archaeology although he may possibly know some Koine Greek - and there is some doubt as to whether his work is peer reviewed (he actually appears to have got a couple of his friends to write reviews of it that SPP accepted as sufficient reason to publish, bypassing their normal systems). Ehrman's work on the Historical Jesus is not peer reviewed, being aimed instead at a popular market distinct from his academic work. Maurice Casey is, however, and should be on that list.31.54.50.158 (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, for Carrier, it is a WP:Truth issue. We work with the given available WP:RS material in a context constrained by WP:Weight per the Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy.

Carrier gives a robust definition of Jesus which should be summed up along with all the other definitions given by the "Historicity of Jesus" experts:

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

Viz. the non-experts (per "Historicity of Jesus") consensus definition:

1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus spoke.
3. Jesus was crucified.

Per Casey;

• Maurice Casey (22 May 2012). "The Jesus Process: Maurice Casey". The New Oxonian. Retrieved 12 September 2016. - do not overlook the comments section for more criticism.
• Maurice Casey (16 January 2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-567-01505-1.

Per others;

• Vermes, Geza (2010). The Real Jesus: Then and Now. Augsburg Fortress, Publishers. pp. 54–55. ISBN 978-1-4514-0882-9. The historical Jesus can be retrieved only within the context of first-century Galilean Judaism. The Gospel image must therefore be inserted into the historical canvas of Palestine in the first century CE, with the help of the works of Flavius Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and early rabbinic literature. Against this background, what kind of picture of Jesus emerges from the Gospels? That of a rural holy man, initially a follower of the movement of repentance launched by another holy man, John the Baptist. In the hamlets and villages of Lower Galilee and the lakeside, Jesus set out to preach the coming of the Kingdom of God within the lifetime of his generation and outlined the religious duties his simple listeners were to perform to prepare themselves for the great event. [...] The reliability of Josephus's notice about Jesus was rejected by many in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but it has been judged partly genuine and partly falsified by the majority of more recent critics. The Jesus portrait of Josephus, drawn by an uninvolved witness, stands halfway between the fully sympathetic picture of early Christianity and the wholly antipathetic image of the magician of Talmudic and post-Talmudic Jewish literature.
• Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C.; Crossan, John Dominic (10 January 2009). The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton University Press. p. 4. ISBN 1-4008-2737-X. There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by john, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE).
• Allison, Dale C. (1 November 2010). Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. Baker Academic. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-8010-3585-2. We can, nonetheless, make numerous informed judgments—for instance, that the Romans crucified Jesus as "king of the Jews"—and we can, happily, judge many propositions more probable than others. It is, for example, much more credible that Jesus was a millenarian prophet than that the eschatological enthusiasm reflected in so many early Christian texts appeared independently of his influence. Still, a vast ignorance remains, and our reach often exceeds our grasp. Time after time, if we are honest, arguments concocted to demonstrate that Jesus really did say this or really did do that fall flat. Historians of Jesus, including myself, have too often assumed that we should be able, with sufficient ingenuity, to reconstruct the genealogy of almost every individual tradition. But it is not so. Some things just cannot be done, and desire does not beget ability.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's important that we give the reader a summary of the mainstream view. I wouldn't call it a criticism section. I'd call it the historical Jesus section, and it would summarize the historical image of Jesus and the evidence for his existence. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that could work. Wdford (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible lead:

Some of the notable experts who have published peer reviewed books on the historicity of Jesus using the most current scholarship available on the subject include; Dale Allison, Amy-Jill Levine and Geza Vermes, all of whom believe that the historical Jesus existed. And whom also tend to see Jesus as a Jewish preacher who never claimed to be God nor had any intention to found a religion. Levine further notes, "There is a consensus of sorts on a basic outline of Jesus’ life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by john, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE)."

96.29.176.92 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC) & update 00:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The RfC was deleted by a bot without an admin closing it with any conclusion as to the question asked. So I have put back into the "criticism" section the quotes I feel are essential.Smeat75 (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel these quotes are "essential"? What do they add over and above a sentence that says "The majority of mainstream scholars support the mainstream view and reject the CMT"? Wdford (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Because they are quotes from historians that explain clearly and concisely why the existence of Jesus is not doubted by scholars of ancient history - independent multiple attestation in ancient documents, exceedingly rare.Smeat75 (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Per new mainstream content on followers of Jesus in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death and began worshiping Jesus as a deity:

Worship:

• Christology § Apostolic Christology
• Son of God (Christianity) § Pauline epistles
• Christianity in the 1st century § Worship of Jesus
• 1 Corinthians 15 § Early Christian creed

Foundation:

• Origins of Christianity
• Jewish Christian § Jewish origin of Christianity
• Apostolic Age § Early leaders
• Early centers of Christianity § Jerusalem
• History of Christianity § Apostolic Church
• History of early Christianity § Apostolic Age
• James, brother of Jesus § Paul's epistles
• Persecution of Christians in the New Testament § Galatians

• James Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making

Dunn assumes a real continuity between Jesus and the Jesus movement. Given that assumption, he writes,

Sociology and social anthropology teach us that such groups would almost certainly have required a foundation story (or stories) to explain, to themselves as well as others, why they were designated as ‘Nazarenes’ and [later] ‘Christians.’

Jesus’ disciples remembered him as a teacher, an exorcist, a healer; their stories told of their preserving his teachings and imitating his doings. Eventually, these memories were organized into gospels, a distinctive form of ancient biography. Dunn concludes that the Jesus movement would have wanted to remember the Jesus tradition and that the spread of the Gospels attests to an interest in “knowing about Jesus, in preserving, promoting, and defending the memory of his mission and in learning from his example.” —Theological Studies 68 (2007) p.19

96.29.176.92 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul’s knowledge of a human Jesus (from seven authentic Pauline epistles circa 50-60 CE):

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

• Jews killed Jesus

Galatians 1:19

• Meets James, “a brother of the Lord”

Galatians 4:4-5

• “Born of a woman”

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

• The ”Last Supper”

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

• Jesus dying and being buried; people see Jesus

Romans 1:1-4

• Jesus “seed of David”

96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96 made a comment about Lataster above, and Gonzales John deleted it, complaining it was OT. If the post is indeed OT, I believe the correct way to deal with it per WP:TPO is to use collapse templates.

The talk guidelines also indicate that talk pages are for the purpose of discussing improvements to the page, and not for discussing personal opinions. So I'd like to re-phrase IP96's contribution, as it effects the article:

Shall we have a section on Raphael Lataster, or shall we mention him somehow in our article narrative? Judging from his Wikipedia article and his teaching website 1, he is working on a PhD in Religious Studies but hasn't finished it yet. He is definitely an advocate for CMT, but it's not clear to me whether he has offered any major innovations to the topic. He's met Wiki GNG by virtue of some self-published books which have been reviewed in reputable publications, and by virtue of his own peer-reviewed publications and an editorial in the Washington Post.

Considering that our article is currently structured as a historical review of significant proponents, I believe he should be briefly mentioned, with a link to his Wiki page. Also, his statements in reputable publications should meet the minimal requirements for consideration as RS, although my guess is that we can find better sources for most of what he has to say.

In my opinion, there are currently several sections for people who don't merit that much attention in the article. Among modern proponents, Allegro is definitely on that list, and probably Kuhn, Harpur, and the Soviet Union proponents. Those could all be consolidated into a single section, along with Lataster.

In saying this, I'm not meaning to denigrate those authors or their contributions in any way. But we need to avoid TLDR problems in this article.

Jeppiz is complaining that we talk endlessly and never reach consensus. Let's see if we can do it for Lataster!! JerryRussell (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Raphael Lataster is a leading proponent of the "Jesus agnosticism" viewpoint and has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject and on the claims of "Jesus atheism" proponents (Official website). 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP96, I am having trouble understanding Lataster's position. In all his recent papers he's been advocating for Jesus agnosticism. Fitzgerald's review of "Jesus Did Not Exist" says: Lataster argues there are not two, but three sides of the argument, and takes up the case for agnosticism himself. Here he does a masterful job; Lataster excels at demonstrating where each side of the debate shines, and where their arguments fail. Yet what is most remarkable – and most refreshing – about Lataster’s threefold presentation is that he doesn’t keep to the safety of the shallow, moderate middle like so many before him. There’s a reason why the book doesn’t have a watered-down, diplomatic title like “Did Jesus Not Exist?” So Lataster has clearly understood for a long time, the appeal of the agnostic position. He didn't invent it, it's been part of mythicism at least since Wells. How can he have it both ways, giving his book a sensational title "Jesus Did Not Exist" and yet actually advocating agnosticism? Fitzgerald's statement is intriguing, but on the final analysis, it feels like a silly non-sequitur. JerryRussell (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that the title serves two functions - highlighting the nature of the debate à la Ehrman viz. Carrier; as a book marketing attention grabber. As they say, Don't judge a book by its cover. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In the title, maybe he means that Biblical Jesus (the miracle worker) didn't exist? In Price's most recent book (Blaming Jesus for Jehovah) he wants to talk about Biblical Jesus, not historical Jesus. Acharya S 2011 'Who was Jesus Christ' doesn't care much about historical Jesus, either. JerryRussell (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Now until some convincing piece of evidence about a Biblical, historical or purely mythical Jesus (or the beliefs of the earliest Christians) is found in future, it seems that the most rational position on Jesus would be a complete rejection of the ‘Christ of Faith’ or ‘Biblical Jesus’, and holding to an agnostic-type position on a more mundane, ‘Historical Jesus’. Maybe there was such a Jesus, maybe there was not. In the absence of convincing evidence, it is possible, but not necessarily probable, and certainly not certain."

——Raphael Lataster, in There Was No Jesus, There Is No God

Per the case for "Historical Jesus" agnosticism, "...the justification of agnosticism is already made obvious by consulting the people arguing for Jesus’ historical certainty. ...Simply peruse the sources for yourself. Do that, and also hear from the historicists how they 'prove' Jesus’ existence. ...If the case for Jesus is unconvincing, then agnosticism is already justified."

——Lataster, Raphael (2015-11-12). Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists, (Kindle Locations 676-683). Kindle Edition.

• Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up;

Only Bart Ehrman and Maurice Casey have thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’ historical existence in recent times. Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted – after we ignore the many, many bits that are untrustworthy – because of the hypothetical (i.e. non-existent) sources behind them. Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions? Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you – and neither can any New Testament scholar. Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable. —Raphael Lataster (December 18, 2014). "Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up". Washington Post.

• Lataster, Raphael (29 March 2016). "IT'S OFFICIAL: WE CAN NOW DOUBT JESUS' HISTORICAL EXISTENCE". Think. 15 (43): 65–79. Think, Volume 15, Issue 43, Summer 2016, Published online by Cambridge University Press

* Jesus Did Not Exist. Probably

Now, with the help and support of numerous other academics, itself quite noteworthy, I have become more assertive in declaring that Jesus’ non-existence is not merely possible. It is probable.  ——Raphael Lataster (12 April 2016). "Jesus Did Not Exist. Probably". Church and State.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:SPS, self-published sources should be avoided, and would only be in the worst case acceptable if the writer is an authority in his field. Both the Lataster and Carrier quotes were from self-published sources, I have removed them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Price is quoted saying, "There might have been a historical Jesus, but unless someone discovers his diary or his skeleton, we'll never know." --Jacoby, Douglas (2010). Compelling Evidence for God and the Bible: Finding Truth in an Age of Doubt. Harvest House Publishers. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-7369-3759-7.

This public speaking quote appears to be taken out of context and published. Additionally, it was WP:Synth combined in this article with Price's published agnosticism writings to IMO portray Price as demanding an unreasonable level of proof. I do not recommended its deletion as quotes of the previous WP:Synth have been propagated on the Internet. But rather adding sources that clarify the original context of the quote. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• All the content for Price needs to copied over to his article Robert M. Price, then his section in this article can be trimmed down.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC) & strike 19:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The lead's description of euhemerism is the opposite of euhemerism. Euhemerism means looking at stories of a god and surmising that they're based on a mortal. That's what historical Jesus scholars do; they see a mortal figure behind the divine myths. Christ myth authors do the opposite of euhemerism. They look at stories of a man and surmise that they're based on myth about a god. Mythicists call what they do "euhemerism", but it's the opposite. I added the contradictory tag. Not sure what else to do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Euhemerism viz. Apotheosis, The term "Euhemerism" has been "Cronenberged".

By result:

• man → deity = Apotheosis
• deity → man = Euhemerism

By Cronenberged popular usage:

• man → deity = upward Euhemerism
• deity → man = downward Euhemerism

The Cronenberged popular usage is the odd notion, that we know what Euhemerus was thinking and what is motives were, when he made a deity into a man, rather than just simply saying this is what actually resulted from him, full stop! 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that there is any "Cronenberged popular usage"? From what I can see, the definition of Euhemerism is perfectly clear: namely a form of apotheosis where the human is not a well-known historical figure, but is nonetheless believed to exist. Carrier always gets this wrong, but who else does? JerryRussell (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How do we know Euhemerus really believed that a human Zeus existed ? I will not argue the point but note that, "Hostile to paganism, the early Christians, such as the Church Fathers, embraced euhemerism in an attempt to undermine the validity of pagan Gods." Did the early Christians believe that a human Zeus existed ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"the definition of Euhemerism is perfectly clear: namely a form of apotheosis where the human is not a well-known historical figure, but is nonetheless believed to exist": Where do you find that definition? It flatly contradicts the regular definition of euhemerism, which is the opposite of apotheosis. Euhemerism means denying the reality of a god and saying that the god's stories are based on a nonmagical, non-godly mortal. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

All I know about this, is what I read in Wikipedia :) Also I just checked my copy of Acharya's 'Christ Con', and she uses it according to Jonathan Tweet's definition. She also mentions that there are several 'tombs of Zeus' in the area of Crete, where credulous (and not just early Christians) go to pay their respects. JerryRussell (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I wryly note the "several" per several 'tombs of Zeus', good for business I imagine. And I just want to make the point, that Euhemerus might of been a conniving atheist, who did not actually believe his own propaganda, and thus to attribute an interpretation of mythology, to him IMO is just pure speculation. But I leave that to editors of the Euhemerism article, I would be happy with saying; that the Biblical Jesus was the product of being Cronenberged—from a deity to a supernatural human :) 96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@User:Jonathan Tweet, Given that Euhemerism, Euhemerist, Euhemeristic is a well defined interpretation of mythology.
While asserting,
that per "Euhemerization" the -ize suffix in Greek and English means “to do like,” hence “to do like Euhemerus did”, thus functional Euhemerism is the application of the term "Euhemerization" as a functional terminology viz. "Deification", that ignores any interpretation of mythology as irrelevant. Thus what Euhemerus was thinking and what his motives were, when he made a deity into a human is irrelevant, all that matters is the functional result—Euhemerus made a deity into a human.

Then per Euhemerization (Functional Euhemerism):

• before (human) → after (deity) = Deification
• before (deity) → after (human) = Euhemerization

Brief Note on Euhemerization by Richard Carrier on April 13, 2016
Euhemerization Means Doing What Euhemerus Did by Richard Carrier on July 31, 2015  -96.29.176.92 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A blog post by Richard Carrier is not a good source to justify placing an idiosyncratic definition of euhemerism into this or any other Wikipedia article. It's not even necessary for this article. Carrier's argument can be described without using the word "euhemerism", and the article would be clearer to the reader if the word wasn't used—then we can avoid getting bogged down with explanations that Carrier uses the word in a non-standard way. But there's no reason why Carrier's idiosyncratic use of the word should be in Euhemerism, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Achilles. That's right.. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"that Jesus agnosticism is the only evidential conclusion possible"

This line does not describe the mythicist argument, just the conclusion of the argument. Anyone who supports any view can claim the exact same thing about their view, that it is the only evidential conclusion possible. Here's how I would describe the argument: "that the evidence is so weak that no one can really know one way or another whether Jesus existed." If there's more to the argument than that, please expand this line So that it failure summarizes the argument. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure all mythicists would agree to Jesus agnosticism. Some state quite flatly that Jesus didn't exist; and when they say 'Jesus never existed', it's often hard to tell whether they're referring to 'historical Jesus', 'Jesus of Nazareth', or both. JerryRussell (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also the issue of each individual Bayesian evaluation, which may be different for each proponent, as per Lataster, "I have become more assertive in declaring that Jesus’ non-existence is not merely possible. It is probable". 96.29.176.92 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Although Thompson rejects the label of 'mythicist', I believe this is because of the confusion over whether mythicism can include 'Jesus Agnosticism'. Thompson clearly holds views that are consistent with other major modern mythicists, and is grouped with mythicists in all the RS discussing his work.

As was discussed in the talk sections above, Allegro, Kuhn, and Harpur have been combined into an umbrella section because of the similarity of their views. The amount of text in the combined section has been substantially cut back for readability. The Soviet proponents have also been included in this section. JerryRussell (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Per followers of Jesus in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death and began worshiping Jesus as a deity. viz. followers of Jesus in life heaven who continued as an identifiable movement after his death and began worshiping Jesus as a deity.

The viewpoint that the historical Jesus is not necessary to explain Christianity, is held by:

• Kurt Noll
• Thomas L. Thompson

96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a citation where Thompson makes it clear that he thinks "the historical Jesus is not necessary to explain Christianity"? I don't think he expresses that view in his book, which he clearly says is not about the historical Jesus. Given that he's refused the label mythicist, I don't think we should be shoehorning him into this article unless he has clearly stated he adhere to the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Bible and Interpretation - Is This Not the Carpenter: A Question of Historicity? (London: Equinox Press, forthcoming 2011)". www.bibleinterp.com. The ancient world's many mythic and theological representations of a figure comparable to the Jesus of New Testament texts are not alone decisive arguments against historicity, but they are part of the picture, which needs to be considered more comprehensively. Literarily viable figures have been represented—historically—in many clarifying ways. ...the New Testament is to be defined neither as a history of the early Christian church nor as an account of the life of a man named Jesus and of that of his followers. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This quote does not say that "the historical Jesus is not necessary to explain Christianity." It says that the NT is not a historical account; these two positions are not the same thing. I don't think this quote justifies placing Thompson in this article, especially when he has refused to classify himself as a mythicist. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is some historical account other than the NT, that documents the immediate origin of Christianity, then somebody should update James Dunn, as per Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making he cites the NT as the sole historical source for the immediate origin of Christianity ? 96.29.176.92 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Akhilleus, do you think Thompson's view could be characterized as that 'the mythical elements are sufficient to explain Christianity'? I think he makes this argument; and if the mythical aspects are sufficient, then historical Jesus is not necessary.

But if you think he is not mythicist, then what is he? What article should his views be covered? Surely not mainstream? JerryRussell (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Having just carefully re-read Thompson's essay in response to Ehrman, I don't believe he specifically renounced the title of 'mythicist'. Instead, he attacked Ehrman for his belief that Jesus existed, and lambasted him for being unable to give any proof for it. JerryRussell (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thompson wrote: "Bart Ehrman has recently dismissed what he calls mythicist scholarship, my Messiah Myth from 2005 among them, as anti-religious motivated denials of a historical Jesus and has attributed to my book arguments and principles which I had never presented, certainly not that Jesus had never existed. Rather than dealing with the historicity of the figure of Jesus, my book had argued a considerably different issue..." He's saying that Ehrman is wrong to call Thompson a mythicist, and that he did not deal with the historicity of Jesus in his book. Since this article concerns a theory about the historicity of Jesus, Thompson does not belong in it since his work, according to his very words, does not deal with the historicity of Jesus.

It's pretty easy to say that 1) since Thompson says the NT is not a historical account, therefore 2) there is no evidence that Jesus was historical, so 3) Christianity does not originate from a historical Jesus. The problem is that Thompson didn't say #2 or #3, so this article should not attribute those positions to him. Same deal if you modify #3 to "Christianity probably doesn't originate from a historical Jesus. In fact, Ehrman drew those conclusions in his book and classified Thompson among those who doubt that there was a historical Jesus, and Thompson said that Ehrman had misunderstood his book. I don't think this article should make the same mistake, especially since we have figures such as Price and Carrier who are clear that they are mythicists and provide ample material for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of illustration, lets say that the NT is a juicy orange fruit and that the juice is common "Near Eastern" cultural content, shared by everyone. Thompson is the juice-man who can wring out every drop and when he is through all that remains is an empty useless rind which is the Historicity of Jesus theory. What Thompson did for the OT he is now doing for the NT. And if what he did was to turn the OT into myth then he is now turning the NT into myth. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It is genuinely concerning that somebody who is editing this article is so ignorant of Thompson's current low standing in Old Testament studies and how far his work has been debunked by archaeological studies over the last 25 years, especially the work of Finkelstein and Silberman - which is itself sometimes attacked for being too dismissive of the Old Testament - felt that remark was in any way accurate or appropriate.81.131.95.48 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think Thompson belongs in this article either. He has specifically denied being a "mythicist", I can't find the source right now but will look further. Smeat75 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maurice Casey (16 January 2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. A&C Black. pp. 10, 24. ISBN 978-0-567-59224-8. [Per Scholars] I introduce here the most influential mythicists who claim to be 'scholars', though I would question their competence and qualifications. [...] Thomas L. Thompson was an American Catholic born in 1939... 96.29.176.92 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thompson's response to Ehrman is here: [11]. When I posted earlier, I had read the article, but not the comments section that follows. The comments section is most enlightening as to Thompson's position. James McGrath posts a comment defining "mythicism" as the domain of Internet crackpots who are inadequately informed and whose work is a parody of scholarship from a bygone era. Thompson replies that "I do not distance myself from 'mythicists' as I do not see this term as referring to any scholars I know." This is in the context that he is announcing a book on mythicism that he has just co-edited with Tom Verenna, an undergraduate history student and well-known mythicist Internet blogger. McGrath continues to pressure Thompson, asking about "mythicists... who consider that it is more likely that Jesus did not exist, and make claims that do not fit the evidence..." and characterizing Thompson's position as "principled historical agnosticism." Thompson replies "I am not a principled historical agnostic nor a mythicist, though perhaps you and Bart Ehrman think so.... Please tell me why you think me a mythicist." McGrath at that point says he is sorry to have confused Thompson with those evil Internet mythicists, and Thompson says: "I do not understand why you wish to demonize individuals by this term 'mythicists'. It is not only misleading, but surely you well know that they do not have a singular understanding of our problems on the historicity of the figure of Jesus. They are individuals and their ideas should be given with citations or references to what they in fact variously have concluded or argued."

Is it not obvious from all of this, that Thompson is playing with McGrath, and with the traditional academic hostility to mythicism? In fact, Thompson's 2007 book does not address the question of whether Jesus existed. However, the 2011 edited volume "Is This Not the Carpenter?" contains articles by several authors contending that Jesus' existence cannot be demonstrated from available evidence, and is not necessary to explain the development of the Christian church. These arguments are clearly stated in the introduction to the book, written by Thompson & Verenna, as well.

I would also like to mention a parliamentary point of order. There has already been an RfC dedicated to the question of Thompson's inclusion in the article, here: Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_56#RfC_about_the_length_of_sections_on_Thompson.2C_Carrier_and_others. Consensus can change, but at the very least I think we should ping all those editors involved in that discussion, before we go eliminating the section on Thompson. JerryRussell (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to add that I personally wouldn't be opposed to drastically cutting back the material here on Thompson, and wrapping it into the "Other Modern Proponents" section, for the sake of the TL:DR problem. I haven't read either Thompson 2007 or Thompson & Verenna 2011, but judging from what's written about Thompson here at Wiki, it's hard to say what he has added to the topic beyond what's already been said by many other authors before him. I suspect he has some valuable and novel insights about the relationship between the OT and NT, but from our article I could hardly tell you what those insights might be. JerryRussell (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, in the 2011 volume "Is This Not the Carpenter," Thompson does not address the question of whether *he* thinks Jesus is ahistorical. Given that he has had many opportunities to clearly state his position on Jesus' historicity and whether he is a mythicist, and has never clearly placed himself among the mythicists, why is it that editors want to put him in this article? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Akhilleus: if you take the introduction to the edited volume as reflecting Thompson's voice, I believe it clearly does indicate Thompson is taking an agnostic position about the existence of Jesus. As to Thompson's tongue-in-cheek rejection of the term 'mythicist', I believe it is very analogous to the situation that many "conspiracy theorists" reject being classified as such. The question should be, whether other RS believe Thompson is a mythicist. Which, I submit, they clearly do.

The closing statement of that RFC was There is consensus for a mention of these scholars' views in the article but not biographical information. There is no consensus on whether to split those views out into their own section. So we could merge the Thompson material into the "Other Modern Proponents" section, without violating that RfC consensus. I would recommend we do that. JerryRussell (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Maurice Casey (16 January 2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. A&C Black. pp. 10, 24. ISBN 978-0-567-59224-8. [Per Scholars] I introduce here the most influential mythicists who claim to be 'scholars', though I would question their competence and qualifications. [...] Thomas L. Thompson was an American Catholic born in 1939...

We work with the given available WP:RS material in a context constrained by WP:Weight per the Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy. Per Casey, one of "the most influential mythicists" should have a section the same as other influential mythicists. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96, thanks for your comment. As an alternative, maybe we could keep the material for now, and migrate some of it into topical sections as they get written? I agree Thompson is prominent & influential, and I'd like to know more about what he has to say. JerryRussell (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing this little section because I don't believe it reflects Bauer's views, especially not the part about Pagan analogies. I've searched the index of 'Christ and the Caesars' and read through Schweitzer's review of Bauer, and I don't find any references to Horus, Buddha, Krishna and so forth. JerryRussell (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Per IP96's edits to the new section on the Gospels, is it true that there's a scholarly consensus that there was an oral transmission process that "accurately transmitted the gospel message of Jesus without error or corruption"? I couldn't find anything at p. 117 of Ehrman's book about oral transmission, and only a brief quote at p. 17 mentioning that I. Howard Marshall believed that oral transmission was valid. Reading the introduction to Dunn 2013, it's clear that he's devoting a big part of the book to responding to criticism; that is, his earlier proposals have hardly won scholarly consensus. JerryRussell (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 August 2016); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

Per #Request for Comment (rfcid=64934AA)

• There clearly is no consensus in support of the content redaction proposed/implemented by Gonzales John.
• There clearly is a consensus in support of creating new content by theme/topic.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

IP96: I, for one, agree that this was the result of the RfC. We did not have a unanimous consensus, but there was a clear numerical predominance, and I didn't see any compelling policy-based arguments for Gonzales John's massive deletions of sourced text, nor his changes to the lede.

Thanks for your patience. If you want to resume editing normally, I won't revert you. JerryRussell (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:, @Gonzales John:, if you want to contest this closure, please let us know? JerryRussell (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bill the Cat 7:, @Jonathan Tweet:, comments? JerryRussell (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please, I am not asking for more comments about the RFC topic. I'm only asking whether we've read the consensus correctly, or whether anyone feels that we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to evaluate the outcome. JerryRussell (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Consensus is tricky to judge because it's not just a number vote and not all arguments are relevant to determining consensus. If the issue is contentious, do we have an outside editor who can come in and close the discussion for us? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan, I don't know how to get an outside editor. There's a long backlog at ANRFC, and I'm sure many editors waiting there would prefer if we don't get in line. Good help is hard to find. Do you think the outcome of the RFC is contentious? Thanks. JerryRussell (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

:No, clearly more editors support removing (although only three support it the exact same way Gonzales John did)as JerryRussel makes clear himself. Another uninvolved editor makes the consenus clear, and he/she/they are more qualified to close the RFC than IP96. Also, Jerry Russel, you do not get tthe final say on naything so don't say that you agree with a supposed consensus becaus eyou don't see any compelling evidence form YOUR human and thus limited perspective. I'll act as the closing editor (don't worry I certainly won't make the removals as severe as Gonzales Johns' ;)49.144.167.188 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

IP49, I see that you've been involved in edit wars in several religion articles since you started using this account yesterday. So I would contest the idea that you are an uninvolved editor for purposes of closing the RFC. Before you remove any large blocks of text (whether or not your removals are related to Gonzales John's), please come to the talk page to discuss your specific proposals. See WP:REMOVAL. JerryRussell (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the IP please. I'm striking their post. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a bold & revert episode this morning regarding a Tucker review of Carrier's book. IP 81.131.95.43 inserted the material, and Charlesdrakew deleted it. I feel that per WP:PRESERVE the material should be in the article. However, I didn't think IP 81's summary was neutral, and I tried to improve on it. JerryRussell (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The stuff about Darwin sounds trivial, trite and hard to comprehend, like, "what's Darwin got to do with it". Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it, Darwin is not mentioned in the reference supplied. Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Darwin is mentioned briefly towards the end of Tucker's review. But I agree with Raquel Baranow, that it's not so easy to understand Tucker's point. He doesn't give any detail about whose Darwinian scholarship is being neglected by Carrier's treatment. JerryRussell (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Darwin is mentioned in the review and I don't think the point is that hard to understand—the arguments that Carrier uses against mainstream NT textual scholarship would, if applied to evolutionary biology, lead to the rejection of Darwin's idea that when can tell when species diverged from one another by their degree of similarity. I'm not sure this is the most useful point to extract from this review, however. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Part of the abstract of the review provides a more useful summary of Tucker's opinion of Carrier's book: "Historians attempted to use theories about the transmission and preservation of information to find more reliable parts of the Gospels, parts that are more likely to have preserved older information. Carrier is too dismissive of such methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence." --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Carrier is of course a fairly significant problem here. His work (like his life at present) is a bit of a joke, which is why there are so few academic reviews of it. I am not sure why anyone thinks Tucker's review was positive, and the page as it stood was flat wrong. Tucker indicated that there was potential in the book, but crucially that Carrier's methodology was flawed and did not resolve the problems it was seeking to. (It is incidentally very amusing to read Carrier's own review of Tucker's work here.) As a result, we are in the very awkward position of putting forward what we all know perfectly well is crank 'scholarship', but no effective refutation of it. The most detailed debunkings I know of by professional scholars are here by Stephanie Fisher of the University of Nottingham, and in the mathematical field by Luke Barnes of the University of Sydney (whose first interactions with Carrier appear to date to the time when Carrier was a Big Bang sceptic and shouting at physicists for ignoring his new discoveries in t he field). But these are blogposts and therefore, although they are both entirely accurate so far as I can judge (I'm not really competent to judge the mathematical side, having even less training than Carrier's three days learning how to use sonar) I don't feel they meet the reliable source criteria. Are there any suggestions for squaring this particularly awkward circle?81.135.2.175 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP81, I wonder if you would be satisfied if we used the quote from Tucker that Akhilleus found (or a summary of it) in place of the enigmatic quote about Darwin? I would agree that of the many reviews that have been posted about Carrier's book, Tucker's is the only one that has been through peer review. Accordingly, if it supplies a sufficient critique, perhaps it's all we need for the article.

Per WP:PARITY, and the questions that have been raised about the adequacy of peer review for Carrier's book, perhaps one could make a case for also including material from blog posts by professional scholars. But I'd have to say that the articles by Stephanie Fisher and Luke Barnes strike me as obviously biased and polemical. My own view is closer to Tucker's, in that I would say the book is an interesting and novel attempt to apply Bayesian methodology, but that it falls short of meeting its claims.

Along those lines, I'd like to declare my own expertise and/or potential COI regarding this topic. I have a PhD in cognitive psychology, and did my dissertation work on a Bayesian model of neural computation in the visual cortex. I'm no longer working at any relevant day job. But, I too have posted a review of Carrier's book at my blog site, here. JerryRussell (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)