Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 21

message: From the two sections above, it seems to me that there is some support for the lede version I proposed, but perhaps more support for this version. That also seems to fall in line with the a general leaning towards topic 2 above. Before we lose what momentum we have, who would oppose or support going back to this as the lede, with the understanding that we still have work to do and changes to make? --Nuujinn (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't votes, they are an attempt to feel out common ground. It's a common practice. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You only need to go through Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition to see the lack of a common ground (unless you count the CFORK idea).  Never mind we have multiple straw polls for different ideas.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal straw poll regarding lede 

message: A while ago Vasal felt we had three choices:
# Define it as non-historicity, following most secondary sources, and pretend there is no problem or confusion. (The approach taken a few years ago.)
# Define it as non-historicity, and then show how that many proponents do not completely deny historicity. (The current approach.)
# Define it as a theory on how belief in Christ emerged, based on those (few) sources that have a clue, and clarify stances on historicity for each author later.
Vasal said the article current state (option 2) was "huge improvement over option one" and in the interests of actual moving this article forward I going toward option 3.  I've streamlined the lead so Nuujinn can stop obsessing over that and get to the issue of actual improving the body of the article which IMHO needs a mammoth overhaul especially in the Context section.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, option 3 is by far superior. The new lead looks good, and is a good start towards Vasals suggestion.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward with Vasal's suggestion 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: Why put the word "theory" in the title? 
We don't affix "theory" to the end of other myths.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.45.68 (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this isn't an article about the myth of Jesus. (For that, see here.) Rather, it's an article about a theory (or cluster of theories) whose proponents often refer to Jesus as a myth. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still argue the article should be titled "Christ Myth theory" as that better describes the topic.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BruceGrubb.  Why not take another vote?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus myth theory? 

message: As proposed by BruceGrubb and Bill the Cat in the section immediately above this one. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how you come to that conclusion since there was never consensus to change it in the first place (From Christ Myth to Jesus Myth) but there was consensus to change it back. The only time an RM is necessary is if it's controversial and I don't see any controversy. If people crawl out of the woodwork and start objecting then it can go to an RM. Mystylplx (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: rename article as [[Christ myth theory]] 

message: Page fully protected for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I've just made an edit to the "meaning of the whole term" section to make sure that a source is not attributed to the wrong author. The source in question is the entry on "Jesus Christ" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia; prior to my edit, the article was crediting Geoffrey Bromiley as the author of this article, when in fact it should be R.P. Martin. I've already mentioned this already; it's disappointing to see that the error was still present. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous attribution of authorship to Bromiley 

message: Well you knew this would happen.  Akhilleus is trying to shut me up in what is IMHO a desperate bid to POV this article into something not supported by the material. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_topic_ban_for_User:BruceGrubb.  Just thought you'd like know.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, we know Bruce. And you have had it coming for a long time. You have utterly messed up this article and driven away competent editors. Let's be clear. You have been given more than enough rope to rig a ship of the line, but all you have created is an elaborate halter. Akhilleus can't censor you. If he succeeds it will be because THE COMMUNITY as a whole agrees that you are a liability. Paul B (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And taking one look at the current dialogue on Talk:Josephus on Jesus, this isn't the only page Bruce has disrupted... Ckruschke (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we start to rebuild the article?  If so where do we start?  ????The beginning?Jobberone (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just to let you all know 

message: The last comment above when I posted this is to my eyes a very relevant one. As we all know, one of the more, uh, problematic editors to this article has been banned from it. That being the case, we can probably get together to turn the article into something which might be able to get GA and maybe FA status, but first we might want to know just what exactly this article is supposed to cover, and, maybe, its "definition." Any specific ideas? John Carter (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the opening is the initial problem. Bruce has used the variable meanings of the concept of "myth" to imply that the idea that JC's life is a symbolic narrative is "Christ myth theory" - but of course mainstream Christians entirely believe that it was a symbolic narrative. That's not what 'Christ myth theory' means. I think it should say that CMT is the belief that the basic outline of Jesus's life as given in the gospels is not true - that the person described is a fictional character - even when we disregard the claims about miracles. It might also add that a CMT model shades into an ultra-minimalist version of the "real Jesus" model which then has to explain where most of the story came from. Paul B (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advocate reverting the lead and the "Context" section to an older version of the article, say 6 February 2011. The lead sentence reads "The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not an historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community" which is a fair representation of what reliable sources say. That lead is far from perfect, but it's much better than what we have now. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems a fair starting point. It's worth nothing at there are good things about the correct structure of the article. There is a fairly sophisticated discussion of varieties of historicity, though it's clumsily presented. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Akhilleus' proposal sounds reasonable to me as well. Paul's point about the varieties of historicity is a good one, but I am not sure that this is necessarily the ideal place for content that might fit better in Historicity of Jesus. I wish I knew a reference work with an article on this topic, because I've been beating the drum about that idea for a while now in multiple venues, but none come to mind right now. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Akhilleus's idea as well.  It's a good starting point IMO.Jobberone (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should include a very brief summary of the variety of historicity theories with special attention to the split between those that hold Jesus had apocalyptic beliefs (such as Albert Schweitzer and Bart Ehrman) and those who do not. Mythicist Robert Price has noted that this is the only historical reconstruction of Jesus that is embarassing to ALL theologies and vested interests (I believe in his book Deconstructing Jesus). It is somewhat but not entirely a split between Christian and secular historicists. Paula Fredriksen in a lecture I saw some years ago noted that the reconstructed historical Jesus of many in the Jesus seminar was effectively a 20th-century liberal Christian, whereas the historical Jesus of her books (and Bart Ehrman's) was thoroughly a 1st-century Jew (a distinction between different historical reconstructions of Jesus which IMO personally seems to me to be lost on some mythicists.)--WickerGuy (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm all for improving the article but I hope we're not going to get all weird again.Jobberone (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to rebuild this article? 

message: I removed this whole (uncited) passage that's recently induced a mini-edit war. What on earth does it mean anyway?:  "still others pointed to the Essene custom of couples having sex in December so that the child would be born in September and that Mary's impregnation was in January to argue for a September to October birth month." The first bit about Essenes does not even correspond to the second half. Is there some reason why being born in September is auspicious? if so, that would seem to be the relevant issue. The having sex date is irrelevant unless one is arguing either that Jesus's parents were Essenes (!) or that God miraculously impregnated Mary in January to mirror Essene beliefs (or perhaps validate them in some way). As for "immaculate conception", that does seem to be an irrelevant and confusing concept to introduce here, and it does seem to be being confused with "miraculous". The IC specifically concerns the transmission of original sin. It is Mary who is immaculate (according to RC doctrine). Paul B (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I can see it having been included were if it were some sort of attempt to link Mary and/or Jesus with the Essenes, and there have been quite a few of those. However, I have to agree that so far as I can see it does not even remotely address the subject of this article, although I suppose it might be relevant to some degree in some other article. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immaculate nonsense 

message: There are two sections in the article.  These need to be merged.  Any volunteers?Jobberone (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the latter section and left the first one intact.Jobberone (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three pillars of the theory 

message: I haven't looked over all the material lost in the drastic revert, but the article needs to clearly assert that there are multiple mythicist theories. The arguments of Earl Doherty, George Wells, and Robert Price significantly diverge from each other. I added a section clarifying this that was lost with a bunch of other stuff in the recent drastic revert.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess part of the question is about whether this is, effectively, a "List of Christ myth theories," or a discussion on the "Christ myth theories" or not. Personally, I think it would make sense to break them into similar theories if we have independent reliable sources (or, in some cases, maybe even the primary sources themselves) which specifically link them. But, if we don't have those sources, or if we want this to be a list of theories, then that probably wouldn't be the way we would want to go. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts & multiple myth theories 

message: Hi guys, I notice that the term "apologists" is used repeatedly in the article, when really "historicists" would be a clearer description.  An apologist is generally understood as someone defending traditional Christianity, while a historicist in this context would mean someone who accepts and/or defends the idea that Jesus was a historical person.  This usage of "apologists" is at least confusing, perhaps even tendentious in implying that the only historicists are Christian apologists.  I would recommend replacing with the term "historicists", except in places where apologist is actually meant (as where prefaced by "Christian").  --Pekoebrew (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A better term would be mainstream secular Bible scholars.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologists? 

message: In the section just above there's some discussion of which mythicists should be included in this article, since works advocating the theory aren't published with academic presses and are sometimes self-published. I think the answer is to see which theorists have been discussed in academic literature. By that criterion, Volney, Dupuis, Bauer, J.M. Robertson, W.B. Smith, Arthur Drews, and G.A. Wells should all be covered here—they're mentioned by many academic treatments of this subject. Ehrman's recent book mentions all of these (except W.B. Smith, I think), and adds several modern writers—Earl Doherty, Frank Zindler, Thomas Thompson, Richard Carrier, Tom Harpur, and Archibald Robinson. Ehrman also mentions Acharya S and Freke/Gandy of examples of mythicist arguments that aren't worth taking seriously. I think getting coverage in Ehrman's book means that these writers have entered "scholarly discourse", at least in the sense that a scholar writing on the topic thinks these are notable mythicists (it definitely doesn't mean that mythicist arguments are gaining credibility in New Testament studies).
When WP:RS talks about peer review, it's talking about a process that happens prior to publication. If you submit an article for publication in an academic journal or a book for publication by an academic press, it is usually reviewed by experts in the subject before the journal or press decides to publish. As far as I know, commercial publishers, even well-respected ones, don't employ this process (but they can have very knowledgable editors who can serve some of the same purposes). As far as I know, no mythicist has published a peer-reviewed work in this sense in an academic journal devoted to the study of early Christianity, or with an academic press. The philosopher Stephen Law recently published a peer-reviewed article in the journal Faith and Philosophy that advocates a mythicist position (or more precisely says that we should be skeptical about Jesus' existence), but I would say that the article is philosophical rather than historical in orientation—e.g., it's not concerned with analyzing passages from the New Testament or proposing an alternative model of Christianity's origins. It's certainly worth covering in this article, but it's coming from a very different place than most mythicists. Aside from Law, I can't think of any mythicist work published with peer-review. But because certain mythicists have been discussed in scholarship, I don't see any problem with using their books as sources to explain their views. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It appears notability and weight should be considered rather than inclusion in mainstream academic media or review.  The fringe of the fringe probably doesn't need much weight though.  I'd also like to pitch this article being readable by the masses while still retaining enough for the moderately literate on the subject.  IMO it needs to be encyclopedic without being a dissertation on the subject.  Or am I way off base here?  Jobberone (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards for inclusion 

message: In the "Historical Jesus Research & the Problem of Bias" section, there is a long citation citation from Akenson. Review of the actual source indicates that the last 3 sentences are not from the cited source, but from a polemic by Richard Dawkins who cites Akenson as his source. The specific sentences are:
“He [Akenson] says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.”
The last two sentences are not found in the reference: they are evidently Dawkins editorializing. The first sentence is a redacted (presumably by Dawkins) version of what Akenson does write, but in its form here, and removed from its context, it is misleading, irresponsible, and POV. Akenson states unequivocally, “The quest for the historical Yeshua is not a search for a non-existent being: Yeshua the man certainly existed.” (p. 540) I have consequently deleted all 3 sentences.
:I think it's actually someone else posting on RD's site. This same position has been argued by Hector Avalos for real--WickerGuy (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a paraphrase, but the original is in the source. I'll add it to the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Read the source, I think you'll agree it is neither misleading, irresponsible nor POV. You may want to reflect whether you are perhaps projecting your own POV. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

text: On page 541 it says: "more than any other group in the present-day academy, biblical historians are under immense pressure - sometimes overt, sometimes subliminal, but virtually omnipresent - to adjust their scholarship, to theologize their historical work. The maintenance of scholarly integrity by so many of the biblical historians is the product of considerable individual heroism. The pressure they frequently experience helps to explain why one encounters so often in the literature appeals to consensus." Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this quote have to do with the subject of this article? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: To expand a bit, it seems that the Akenson quote is relevant to Historical Jesus. But in this article, the matter at stake is whether Jesus existed—and Akenson's quote doesn't speak to that at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akenson Quote 

message: (Note: this is the last time, I promise. I double-added it once before, because I didn't think it went through the first time. Sorry about that.) I note that the article contains information about the "Remsberg list," which is probably fine, but includes at the end a list of self-published books im which it has appeared. I don't see how the inclusion of the list in the article necessarily requires the listing of SPS sources in which it has appeared, although I can see maybe, given her prominence, mention of Madelyn Murray O'Hair having used it. Do we really want to lend legitimacy to a number of books which may not meet wikipedia guidelines for inclusion by indicating them as points of substantiation for an idea which probably could be included in the article without them? Personally, I think that we would probably be able to have the article completely without such dubious SPS, even if it might be rather shorter. We don't need to make every article approach the limits of length, and I don't see that the article is necessarily improved by, basically, lowering wikipedia standards. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources 

message: "It is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work"
I find it extremely ironic that this particular line is under the section covering "problems of bias"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.149.192 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a direct quote from Akenson. We've discussed this before. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It appears that the point being made is that there is pressure to put a theological gloss on Biblical research due to the religious roots of many academic institutions, and it is difficult to escape from the bias that confers. However, the sentence does not flow well with the remainder of the paragraph. Nonetheless, I am not entirely sure of the point being made you are making.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with both points WickerGuy makes above. If the IP is intending to say that academics are pressured to conform with religious views, I think that the popular works of Bart Ehrman, James Tabor, and others can be seen as a serious counterindication of that point, considering their work sells quite well and in Ehrman's case is also rather highly respected by academics as well. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the point that's being made. It's the use of the word "heroism" that I have trouble with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.149.192 (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems of Bias 

message: There is in fact an almost universal consensus among professional secular New Testament scholars that Jesus existed, and there is no credible reason to believe this is consciously theologically motivated.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And what's more: you're not supposed to keep adding or deleting stuff repeatedly in the face of reverts by others. The rule is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Our anonymous editor made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now it needs to be discussed before it can be applied again. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on recent edit-war 

message: I just removed the recently added text
"It should be noted, that this is not a conspiracy "theory" in the conventional sense, as there is no physical evidence supporting the idea that Jesus was in fact a historical figure. Christ as historical figure bears the burden of proof."
for being too POV.
Even if this belonged in Wikipedia, it would have made a lot more sense at the end of the 2nd paragraph (after the discussion of Hector Avalos) than the first. However, it is bad because this is not how most historians work. Most historians would say:
a) the fallback position is to be utterly agnostic on whether Jesus existed or not. For example, historians are very uncertain as to whether or not Robin Hood is a real figure or not (though we can fairly sure that Maid Marian and Friar Tuck are quite fictional- they are only in late versions of the story). Arguments can be made for or against a historical Robin Hood, but no one thinks that the burden of proof is to establish Robin Hood existed or that the fallback/default position is to assume non-existence. Contrast this to the fact that there is strong disconfirming existence against the Book of Mormon (Native Americans are descended from inhabitants of Mongolia and Siberia, not the lost tribes of Israel and they never used Iron Age tools like shovels before the arrival of Europeans to America contrary to the BofM's account). (There are also much stronger reasons to believe Moses is fictional than Jesus. King Arthur is at best a composite of multiple personalities, etc.)
b) At issue is not just the amount of evidence, but the most parsimonious interpretation of the relatively slim evidence that we have. The three leading mythicists have three different (and conflicting) explanations of the origins of Christianity, and at least one of them (Earl Doherty) has an explanation that involves so many wild speculative leaps it seems less probable than an existing Jesus. As the now defunct "skepticwiki.org" article put it 
"even the errors in the New Testament, such as those in the birth narratives, are far more consonant with a historical Jesus than with a mythical one. By contrast, to support a mythical Jesus requires more contorted explanations of the evidence.....Quite simply, Occam's Razor favors the existence of Jesus."--WickerGuy (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on recent reversion 

message: ===The Two Chapters Discussing the Christ Myth thesis in Schweitzer's 2d ed. of the Quest===
Here is an assertion that must surprise many theologian historians familiar with the "historicity" versus "non-historicity" debate.
"The Christ-myth theory took a severe hit in the second edition of Albert Schweitzer's book Quest of the Historical Jesus."
If this "severe hit" was objective, it must have been acknowledged at least in Germany, since the 2d edition came out in 1913. And we can excuse non-German writers to have overlooked it, since this second edition, in German, remained unknown and ignored by British/American/French scholars, as it was not translated into English until 2001. But its impact should have been noticeable in Germany.
Why is this “hit” termed “severe”? In the sense that other theologians were so overwhelmed by the strength of Schweitzer’s arguments that they threw in the sponge about adding anything and retired to their University classes?
I have carefully read the two critical chapters of the 2d edition:
*Ch. 22, (p. 451-499), "The New Denial of the Historicity of Jesus" (Die Neueste Bestreitung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu)
Schweitzer analyzes Arthur Drews's thesis, plus eight writers in support of Drews's thesis about the non-existence of Jesus (John M. Roberston, Peter Jensen, Andrew Niemojewski, Christian Paul Fuhrmann, W.B. Smith, Thomas Whittaker, G.J.P.J. Bolland, Samuel Lublinski). Three of those supporters favor mythic-astral explanations: Peter Jensen, the famous orientalist expert of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which he has shown having influenced all religion stories of the Ancient Near East, Fuhrmann, and Niemojewski. The other support the same Christ Myth as Drews, and some are in fact his inspirations: Robertson, Smith, Whittaker, Bolland, Lublinski.
*and Ch. 23 (p. 500-560), "The Debate About the Historicity of Jesus" (Die Diskussion über die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu).
Schweitzer reviews the publications of 40 theologians/scholars who have published refutations in response to Drews. He also mentions the participants in the Feb. 1910 public debate in Berlin. Nearly all the publications are critical and negative. Schweitzer continues his systematic exposure of the problems and difficulties in the theories of those he calls Bestreiter ("challengers') and Verneiner ("deniers") — essentially the Dutch Radicals, and the three pillars of the Christ Myth thesis, Robertson, Smith and Drews. 
Schweitzer also briefly discusses the questions of the authenticity of Paul's epistles and Paul's historicity as well.
In those two chapters, Schweiter, as usual in those high-minded Victorian times, runs a very polite and courteous discussion of all the arguments presented by the other parties. The style rests on a high ground of civility, with such lines as: “But this assumption (of the opponents) does not explain this…”, “but this leaves unclear the fact that…” “But then, how can you explain that…?”, or “There is nowhere the mention of that claimed influence…” “Where does this leave Paul’s assertion that…” etc...That is the way theological refutations are run.
It’s nearly impossible to deliver any “hit” of a knock-out impact in a theological discussion, conducted in such courteous fashion, because the interpretations rely on the opinions of an expert scholar, while his targets, opposing scholars, are not automatically "convinced". That is why the debate simply rebounds and still goes on.
===Peter De Mey's Review of the Theology Debate Around the Christ Myth (in German, English, and French)===
It so happens that the Belgian professor Peter De Mey, of the famous Catholic Un. of Leuven, in Belgium, has made a study of the refutations to the Christ Myth thesis over the 1909-1927 period, tabulating the responses from established “fundamental” theology academics, a total of 87 (without Drews):  83 for 1909-1927 + 4 odd listings.
Peter De Mey, "The Influence of Metaphysical and Epistemological Presuppositions on Jesus Research Then and Now: Reconsidering the Christ-Myth Debate", Cath. Un. Leuven, ca. 2004 (found on Google as a PDF, link not transferable in this post).
De Mey found 68 publications from 1909 to 1913 in refutation of the Christ Myth, when the second edition of the ‘‘Quest” appeared. (in German, English, and French). 
From 1914 to 1927, De Mey found 15 important refutations. Of course, WWI changed the priority of attention, and the catastrophic and chaotic situation in Germany after 1918 considerably dampened the interest in discussing the existence or not of Jesus. The existence of Germany had become more of a priority.
But of those 15 refutations appearing from 1914 to 1927, 10 were published by Germans in Germany, who had access to the 2d. edition of the Quest. Whatever the “severe hit” was, it did not prevent other German theologians from continuing to publish their own rebuttals.
As a fact of history, Schweitzer’s book did not stop at all the publications of 10 additional German refutations (books and articles) in 1914-1927. The "hit" was not "severe" enough to be a real knock-out, persuading other theologians that the fight had been decisively won.
The other five refutations were published in English, in England and America.
Here is the list of the 10 refutations produced by German theologians from 1914 to 1927
* Goetz, K.G., 1914,  
* Graber, Oskar, 1927
* Gröber, Konrad, 1923
* Leipoldt, Johannes, 1920, 1923
* Loofs, Friedrich, 1922
* Mundle, W, 1921
* Schmidt, F.W, 1921
* Staab, K, 1922, 1924
Note that starting in 1925 (with Hitler's Munich coup) and even more so after 1927, Germany was engulfed in violently disruptive social conflicts and chaos that made the gentle pursuit of refuting the non-existence of Jesus look like a puerile occupation for academics.
Then, De Mey has found three more refutations by German theologians, appearing after 1927:
*Herrmann, Wilhelm, 1967
*Troeltsch, Ernst, 1969
*Tillich, Paul, 1992
All those names are of reputed "fundamental" theologians, acknowledged by De Mey as top authorities in their field. Most of them are now unknown to us who have not done a special study. Still the names of Ernst Troeltsch and even more so Paul Tillich are well known to American/English students of theology.
If we switch to examining the stream of refutations following 1913 outside of Germany, it becomes clear that whatever "hit" was delivered by Schweitzer's 2d edition, it remained unknown.
There certainly was a "hit", but every good refutation delivers a "hit". It seems that the perception of that "hit" by Schweitzer is now exaggerated because of the later fame attached to the name of Schweitzer. 
Schweitzer (1875-1965) was only 38 in 1913, and he was considered as having produced a couple of good-quality books, but he was no higher authority than the more famous names of his time, like Julius Wellhausen, William Wrede, and Johannes Weiss. And as he was known to have abandoned theology for medicine, with no university appointment, his marginal status made him even less of an authority at that time.
When R. Joseph Hoffmann, one of the best-known specialists of Early Christianity history in the States, laid down his selection of the most important refutations of the Christ Myth Theory over the 100-year period of 1912-2012,  he limited himself to 5 major names, passing over Schweitzer's 2d edition in silence. And although Hoffmann respects Schweitzer immensely, especially when valued retrospectively in the 2000s, he does not see, as an expert historian, any decisive "hit" affecting the scholars community then and now produced by the 2d edition of 1913.
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Statement in the Lead Section that is Particularly Puzzling 

message: It so happens that the Belgian professor Peter De Mey, of the famous Catholic Un. of Leuven, in Belgium, has made a study of the refutations to the Christ Myth thesis over the 1909-1927 period, tabulating the responses from established “fundamental” theology academics, a total of 87 (without Drews):  83 for 1909-1927 + 4 odd listings.
Peter De Mey, "The Influence of Metaphysical and Epistemological Presuppositions on Jesus Research Then and Now: Reconsidering the Christ-Myth Debate", Cath. Un. Leuven, ca. 2004 (found on Google as a PDF, link not transferable in this post).
De Mey found 68 publications from 1909 to 1913 in refutation of the Christ Myth, when the second edition of the ‘‘Quest” appeared. (in German, English, and French). 
From 1914 to 1927, De Mey found 15 important refutations. Of course, WWI changed the priority of attention, and the catastrophic and chaotic situation in Germany after 1918 considerably dampened the interest in discussing the existence or not of Jesus. The existence of Germany had become more of a priority.
But of those 15 refutations appearing from 1914 to 1927, 10 were published by Germans in Germany, who had access to the 2d. edition of the Quest. Whatever the “severe hit” was, it did not prevent other German theologians from continuing to publish their own rebuttals.
As a fact of history, Schweitzer’s book did not stop at all the publications of 10 additional German refutations (books and articles) in 1914-1927. The "hit" was not "severe" enough to be a real knock-out, persuading other theologians that the fight had been decisively won.
The other five refutations were published in English, in England and America.
Here is the list of the 10 refutations produced by German theologians from 1914 to 1927
* Goetz, K.G., 1914,  
* Graber, Oskar, 1927
* Gröber, Konrad, 1923
* Leipoldt, Johannes, 1920, 1923
* Loofs, Friedrich, 1922
* Mundle, W, 1921
* Schmidt, F.W, 1921
* Staab, K, 1922, 1924
Note that starting in 1925 (with Hitler's Munich coup) and even more so after 1927, Germany was engulfed in violently disruptive social conflicts and chaos that made the gentle pursuit of refuting the non-existence of Jesus look like a puerile occupation for academics.
Then, De Mey has found three more refutations by German theologians, appearing after 1927:
*Herrmann, Wilhelm, 1967
*Troeltsch, Ernst, 1969
*Tillich, Paul, 1992
All those names are of reputed "fundamental" theologians, acknowledged by De Mey as top authorities in their field. Most of them are now unknown to us who have not done a special study. Still the names of Ernst Troeltsch and even more so Paul Tillich are well known to American/English students of theology.
If we switch to examining the stream of refutations following 1913 outside of Germany, it becomes clear that whatever "hit" was delivered by Schweitzer's 2d edition, it remained unknown.
There certainly was a "hit", but every good refutation delivers a "hit". It seems that the perception of that "hit" by Schweitzer is now exaggerated because of the later fame attached to the name of Schweitzer. 
Schweitzer (1875-1965) was only 38 in 1913, and he was considered as having produced a couple of good-quality books, but he was no higher authority than the more famous names of his time, like Julius Wellhausen, William Wrede, and Johannes Weiss. And as he was known to have abandoned theology for medicine, with no university appointment, his marginal status made him even less of an authority at that time.
When R. Joseph Hoffmann, one of the best-known specialists of Early Christianity history in the States, laid down his selection of the most important refutations of the Christ Myth Theory over the 100-year period of 1912-2012,  he limited himself to 5 major names, passing over Schweitzer's 2d edition in silence. And although Hoffmann respects Schweitzer immensely, especially when valued retrospectively in the 2000s, he does not see, as an expert historian, any decisive "hit" affecting the scholars community then and now produced by the 2d edition of 1913.
--ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter De Mey's Review of the Theology Debate Around the ''Christ Myth'' (in German, English, and French)