Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 3

message: Perhaps I was a just a trifle harsh in saying "is someone called Hermann Detering, who has published two books including Der Gefälschte Paulus which was translated into english by an admirer, published in a now-defunct journal, and has been posted on the web as The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight[3]." though it is all true (see the ref) and it is common ground that Detering is non-notable. The fact that the best known proponent of a view is utterly marginal with no academic post of significant publications gives a feel for what a "lunatic fringe" this view is. NBeale 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonable to indicate Detering's academic background, but I don't think we can simply say that he "appears to have no academic affiliations". If we have a source saying so, that's another matter. EALacey 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave this article alone as you obviously are not up to date. The Jesus Myth is a spectrum of ideas so I would love to know how you think you have organised them into 4 distinct groups. The idea that Jesus is a fiction built on near eastern mythology has a modern proponent in Thomas L. Thompson who is well qualified to speak on these issues . The mystical roots of early Christianity are also being explored by the likes of Elaine Pagels as academia studies the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls. To dredge up obscure academics who are obviously on the fringe looks like an apologetics attempt to discredit by association. As predicted the need to refute the theory is being guided by a very limited and biased reading list.  Sophia 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The classification into four groups was added by an anonymous contributor in December. If it's too schematic, that can't be blamed on anyone who's edited the article since then. EALacey 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Sophia. I did not insert these fringe writers, they were there and I tried to contextualise them.  Thompson is at least a real academic (however daft his ideas may be) so if you were to add a ref to him it would suggest that this daft theory has at least one academic supporter with relevant qualifications - as opposed to zero. He is of course a bit of a dinosaur, aged 68 and evidently stuck in the past. NBeale 22:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: NBeale  reread your post - everything about it states why you should not be editing this article.  Sophia 07:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sophia, your comments to other editors are not being helpful. Please abide by Wikipedia:Civility Thanatosimii 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deterring 

message: There really isn't much primary source material regarding Jesus.  Paul's letters are probably the closest we get, since they were conserved, but it doesn't appear he met Jesus before the crucifixion.
Robert Eisenmann, in "James, Brother of Jesus", mentions that thas far as evidence for the existence of Jesus goes, the best piece of evidence is one of Pauls letters, where he refers to the religious leader James as "the brother of our lord".  James has a bit more in the way of people writing directly about him, and Paul makes the link from Jesus to James.  If you read brother literally, that is.Trishm 12:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's stretching evidence by quite a bit.  I think in a English Common Law court that would be tabula in naufragio, meaning well if you don't have much else, that'll do.  A third-person account really doesn't qualify as a source without corroboration.  What if Paul were perpetrating the myth?  Throughout history that's been true.  Think about Shakespeare's Richard III--almost everything we think we know about him comes from Shakespeare.  Historical facts seem to indicate that he wasn't quite what Shakespeare had indicated, mainly because Shakespeare had an agenda in solidifying Elizabeth's claim to the thrown.  Orangemarlin 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on how slight the evidence is (and I am with you 100% about perpetuating historical myth - I only learned recently that Elizabeth I was by no means a "given" to inherit the throne), but I'm not sure what it is that I've said that you think is being stretched.  Is it the existence of James?  Existence of Jesus? Relationship between the two? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand what you meant.Trishm 03:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that this page is not for debate, or even strictly speaking discussion, of whether or not Jesus is a mythological character. It's about discussion of how to improve the article, which is or should be if I'm not badly mistaken about scholarly arguments for the hypothesis that Jesus Christ is a mythological character. So please try to frame your posts within that context. Arker 04:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a very good question. That position has much more support than the pure mythicist position - even for instance the position of the Jesus Seminar approximates this in the distinction between the historical Jesus and the spiritual Christ. Many liberal christians would probably agree with this, or at least not disagree with it. On the other hand, Dougherty for instance, following that conceptual distinction, inverts their developmental timeline, arguing that the spiritual Christ was the earlier conception, and the historical Jesus a later development. It does look, to me, to be well within the scope of the article, both because it is a mythicist position, just a less hardcore one if you will, and because of how it relates to a more hardcore mythicist position such as Dougherty's. I'm not so familiar with some of the other figures mentioned in the article, though, and I'm not sure how all this would relate to them, or not. Anyone? Arker 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that most if not all of what you're talking about would come under the scope of Historical Jesus - part of the reason why I dislike the fact that this article was at some point renamed "Jesus as Myth" is that it separates it a bit from the position as a minority, and might be seen as including the mainstream scholarly perspective that certain aspects (greater or lesser) of the christian account being myth, in which case there's not really any point in having this article separate from Historical Jesus.  23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paul : james, brother of our lord 

message: I realized I had never read the entire article, even though I had skimmed it. I read it and in many places it is not horrible. In other spots it badly needs references, and some places sure have the appearance of O.R., although I am not a scholar in this area. My other complaint is that it does not include all the references that I seem to have run across, although those are admittedly nonscholarly, they are an important part of the history of denial. I think it has some good information in it and was quite interesting. I should read the previous version as well. I am wondering if we can just rework a couple of bad sections to start.--Filll 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it is ok but a lot of it is way off track and the overall article does not represent the field as I know it. There is loads of duplication of other articles rather than summaries and I do get the feeling that some of the really wacky stuff is here to discredit the academic stuff. The opening is not clear or well written and misleads the reader. The history of the idea is again very misleading and plain wrong in parts. The egyptian stuff is duplicated and is way to long for undue weight. Also the criticism of the theory is also wrong and extremely misleading. I genuinely don't know where to begin with it and I thought we had all agreed that it was going to take more than tinkering to put it right. If people are now pulling back from that position then fine - wiki is a collaborative process but it's a shame to stick with a very poor article for fear of "being bold".  Sophia 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't afraid to be bold!!!!!  Orangemarlin 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bad with images, but I think we need to carry images over.  Orangemarlin 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not mind starting over from the earlier version. I just think we should rescue the appropriate bits from the deleted version that seem appropriate. We should make sure that all material is heavily referenced, since I felt sort of cheated when I read the deleted version, I felt huge sections were unreferenced. All kinds of interesting stuff, and no references? I will note that this present version's introduction reads much better than the deleted version's introduction.--Filll 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted, and it looks like a lot of good people are doing what you suggested.  Sometimes  Wikipedia is wonderful!!!!  Orangemarlin 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I finally read it through 

message: This is a bit hard to believe, since the theory has been around almost 2000 years. Surely there are SOME????--Filll 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on absolutely nothing concrete, I'd guess no one dares take this on because it would destroy the belief set of billions of people.  Christians would rather read that the Kings of France descended from Mary Magdalene's baby who was the offspring of Jesus.  Even now, watch the fundies attack this article once again, but this time a lot of good editors are involved.  Orangemarlin 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To more seriously respond to your question, wouldn't most works on this area be of the speculative nature? Orangemarlin 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember that it's less than 200 years since Jean-François Champollion had to stop excavating an Egytptian tomb because his work was funded by the Vatican and he was told to cover up anything that showed the bible to be in error. What he had found were hieroglyphs that showed that Noah's flood had not happened when the church said it did, as life in Egypt was carrying on as normal when the bible said it should be under water.  Sophia 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to accuse the LDS church of covering up its past, because, honestly, a bunch of gold plates in Palmyra, NY?  Then I found out that Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews cover up the past.  The one reason I remain Jewish is that it has (mostly, not everywhere) reconciled the past with its faith.  It's more interested in its history and its faith, rather than in a lot of stuff.  There was a  Catholic priest who taught a course in Religion that I took in college--he used to say, don't let Catholicism get in the way of being a good Catholic.  Orangemarlin 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I don't really care about the LDS church one way or another, other than lumping them in with all Christian sects (and please, from my vantage point Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and jews for jesus are all the same).  They all rely upon specious myths and they all work hard to suppress any criticism of their myth.  Orangemarlin 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no peer reviewed work published? 

message: Just came in to see what happened with my suggestions ... and good job... you probably don't get to hear that much on this page.Goldenrowley 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: good job

message: why was it removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmyth (talk • contribs) 15:27, February 11, 2007
Wow, not sure who wrote this, but maybe it should be deleted?  Orangemarlin 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We reverted to a version from last summer.  There was too much arguing and other stuff, and it ruined the article.  You can rewrite it if you think it adds to the article.  Orangemarlin 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pythagorean section

message: Is a magazine considered scholarly enough for this group? If so I can bring an interesting article on early church  that may be relevant. Goldenrowley 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means bring it here. Even if we can't use it directly maybe it will give us some other links we can use.  Sophia 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Did they really miss-spell "Jesus" as "Jesis"? I question the authority of any magazine article which can't even spell the name of the person who is the subject of the article right. I mean, come on, its five letters long and its simple, not to mention really famous.... Homestarmy 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my mistake not theirs. Goldenrowley 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source suggested

message: Since there has been no response to the citation request I have cut the following passage:
Some versions of the Book of the Dead report that Horus fed 5000 with just a few loaves of bread, since he was born and lived at the house of bread (it was a historic capital of Egypt, and grain store), which translated into Hebrew is bethlehem, and was named Annu in Egyptian, which translated into Hebrew is bethany (house of Any/Anu).
GoldenMeadows 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horus & citations

message: Frazer's work on myth is cited in the article as having provided the foundation for current Jesus-myth theory. I believe it is important to make it clear that Frazer explicitly rejected the Jesus-myth hypothesis. In the 3rd edition of The Golden Bough he stated that, "my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth.... The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention." TheologyJohn deleted the second part of this quotation, judging it irrelevant to this section of the article. However, it seems to me that if a scholar is said to have provided the foundations for a theory it is important to note that he specifically rejects that theory.
Barrett Pashak 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm trying to think back to my thoughts at the time - I can't think entirely why I wrote that.  Is he responding to any proper academic theory of it - had anything corresponding to the modern theory been written at the time?  e.g. was he responding to say G.A. Wells? TJ 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He doesn't specify. He just says, "My views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood." Would you have any objection to restoring the part of the quotation that you deleted? Barrett Pashak 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so, as long as no-one else here has any.  Perhaps the "My views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood." quote could be used as well.  Do we know with confidence that he is actually used by the mythicists, though? Because it's really unfair on them to say so otherwise. TJ 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that mythicists refer to Frazer at all anymore. His disavowal is far to stark for them to get around. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that he did give the myth theory a great boost up until his disavowal in the third edition. Here is the relevant passage in full:
As my views on this subject appear to have been strangely misunderstood, I desire to point out explicitly that my theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth as a great religious and moral teacher [not, you will notice, as the Son of God] who founded Christianity and was crucified at Jerusalem under the governorship of Pontius Pilate. The testimony of the gospels, confirmed by the hostile evidence of Tacitus (Ann. 15,44) and the younger Pliny (Epist. 10,96) appears amply sufficient to establish these facts to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced enquirers. It is only the details of the life and death of Christ that remain, and will probably always remain, shrouded in the mists of uncertainty. The doubts which have been cast upon the historical reality of Jesus are, in my judgment, unworthy of serious attention. Quite apart from the positive evidence of history and tradition, the origin of a great religious and moral reform is inexplicable without the personal existence of a great reformer. To dissolve the founder of Christianity into a myth, as some would do, is hardly less absurd than it would be to do the same for Mohammed, Luther, and Calvin. Such dissolving views are for the most part the dreams of students who know the great world chiefly through its pale reflection in books. These extravagances of scepticism have been well exposed by Professor C.F. Lehmann-Haupt in his Israel, seine Entwicklung im Rahmen der Weltgeschichte (Tubingen, 1911), pp. 275-285.
I don't know how much of this you think should go in. Suggestions? Barrett Pashak 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hearing none, I'll just go ahead with what looks to me as a reasonably indicative quotation.Barrett Pashak 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frazer 

message: About a month ago, this article was reverted to an older version. Looking back at the page before it was reverted, I think there may be a case for incorporating some material from that version into the current article.
In particular, I think that the old section on The New Testament epistles is superior to the current one on Paul's presentation of Jesus. I edited the old section, whereas I haven't had anything to do with the current section that I can remember, so perhaps I'm biased. But I think that the old version is clearer and better referenced. The current section is longer, but the additional material all looks problematic to me. For example, the current article draws a rigid distinction between the undisputed Pauline letters and the other Paulines in their view of Jesus. However, it isn't clear about what this involves (what, for instance, is the difference between "occasional references ... to a flesh-and-blood Jesus" and "limited mention of Jesus as a historic figure"?). Also, it doesn't cite any sources who make this distinction. On the other hand, the old article cites the views of G. A. Wells and Earl Doherty on the Epistles, and makes it clear that these authors find a non-Gospel Jesus in more than just the undisputed Paulines.
According to the current article, Elaine Pagels considers Paul to have been a Gnostic. The Wikipedia article on The Gnostic Paul does say that, but a linked review in Theology Today refers only to "Pagels' apparent assumption that if Paul is well beloved by the Valentinians, he could not have been an anti-gnostic", and quotes her as leaving "to other scholars" the question of whether Gnostic exegesis of Paul was "accurate". If this is right, the current article may be attributing to Pagels a stronger claim than she actually makes. EALacey 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  In this case, the old version represents the theories of specific Jesus-myth proponents.  The new version makes a series of inaccurate arguments based presumably upon one individuals more general feel of the field (or, worse, on one individuals POV), which are only attributed (wrongly, apparently - I've only read Pagels' the gnostic gospels, but I'll take your word for it) on one occasion. TJ 11:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case I was unclear, I haven't read The Gnostic Paul either; I'm going on the information online. EALacey 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you weren't unclear... I'm just a bit slow! :) TJ 12:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since nobody has raised an objection, I'll go ahead and make the change. EALacey 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring material from the old article? 

message: I really don't think it is right to call this a Theory.  There is no significant academic support for this (as far as I can see only one tenured Professor in a relevant discipline out of the tens of thousands in the world) for the very good reason that it is completely ludicrous. If there were any suggestion in antiquity that Jesus had not been a real person then it would certainly have been recorded in the Jewish tradition, yet all the references to Jesus in the Talmud presuppose that he was a real person.  Equally it is clear from Pliny's letter that the Roman authorities, who were trying to supress the cult, never suggested that Jesus was not a real person.  We should characterise it as a "suggestion" (which it clearly is) and not dignify it with the name "theory". NBeale 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "theory" is making any statement on the merits or otherwise of the theory.  I would regard young earth creationism as a theory, but I would also regard it as absurd. TJ 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On the continuum from "suggestion" to "hypothesis" to "theory" this clearly lies at the suggestion end.  There are lots of quite serious people who believe in young earth creationism. Jesus as Myth is well beyond the lunatic fringe. Not even Richard Dawkins accepts it! NBeale 19:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no serious people who believe in young earth creationism - just those well beyond the lunatic fringe of pretend scientists. The Jesus myth is a theory in the same way that creationism and evolution are both theories. What differs are their acceptance amongst the wider community and this article makes it clear that this particular theory is not widely accepted.  Sophia 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So i'm not seriously a person anymore? At least now people can't insult what I personally think if I don't exist huh... Homestarmy 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit to being on some lunatic fringes myself so no insult was intended :o)  Sophia 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think "theory" and "myth" are appropriate words. Of course the Talmud references, what few there are, are unlikely to mention, "Oh by the way this messiah chap met a sticky end. We warned him, but did he listen ?....", but they do kind of mention someone around that time though very slim references here. But the article is not arguing "Did Jesus Exist ?" but "Did Jesus do all those things on the way to the forum ?". If the NT was written contemporaneous to "Jesus" or at least very close to the events then I would agree "suggestion" as it would be fringe to doubt the primary sources but given that the New Testament was written many years after the supposed life of this alleged messiah I feel that "theory" and "myth" are appropriate words. On balance (what few records plus the results of say the Jesus Seminar), I'm like Dawkins and would say that there probably was a person but it's rather far fetched to presume much of what was written many years after in the NT was true any more than what is written in the OT is true. Sorry but Christianity may be built on rock but it's a house of cards. Ttiotsw 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's an interesting opinion, but yet again I find myself bashing my head against a wall in frustration because somehow the world has gotten the opinion that the most liberal fringes are somehow the "most scholarly" position or some analogous sentiment. But on the topic of the term "theory," in scholarship a theory is what happens whenever someone sits down and says, "I think this ....." It has no attached inference of truth or falsehood, or of solidness or flimsyness. Thanatosimii 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Theory but a suggestion 

message: I have removed the following from the article, under "History of the theories".
:This view was shared by Marcion (110-160 A.D.), who compiled the first version of the New Testament as early as 144 A.D., and whose followers, the Marcionites, continued until the 4th Century. 
:Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, in 115 A.D. in the "Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, near Zarbus," urged her: "Avoid those that deny the passion of Christ, and His birth according to the flesh; and there are many at present who suffer under this disease." The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in chapter 7 says: "For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist," apparently quoting 1 John 4:3.
The problem here is that, as far as I know, no modern scholar regards the letter to Mary as an authentic work of Ignatius. Only seven letters ascribed to Ignatius are generally agreed to be authentic (listed at Ignatius of Antioch#Letters). The letter to Mary can't be taken as reliable evidence about the beliefs of early-second century Christians, because it was written later than then, probably centuries later.
This means that whoever added the quotation from Ignatius must have been carrying out original research – or relying on a very outdated source. I've removed two other patristic references being used to make the same point; it's likely that they were added at the same time. I have left in the only quotation which the article explicitly states is cited by Freke and Gandy in support of their views. If someone with access to these authors' work could check which, if any, of the other references they cite, then those could go back in the article, as long as it's made clear that "Freke and Gandy cite Polycarp", etc. EALacey 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignatius of Antioch and related references 

message: JS speaking: I don't agree, on a scholarly basis, with what the article states about the Christian religion (and Christian gospel narratives) having any similarity to mythical religions. For example, Pinchas Lapide, a devout Jewish rabbi, is still careful to discern between the historical nature of the resurrection and narrative in the gospel accounts and the embellished narratives that he finds in Jewish targums and midrash, and legends of others cultures. He explained on page 101 of his work The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective: "The targums are translations of the biblical text into the Aramaic popular language which were made before the time of Jesus. They embellished this translation by paraphrastic statements, enlarements, and explanations. Another example is the midrash---that 'investigation of the Scriptures' which frequently takes the biblical text only as the starting point for a plethora of moral teachings, homileies, legends, and tales, in order to deepen the Holy Scriptures and 'to bring heaven closer to the community.'" He continues on page 109, that "to blame the rabbis and evangelists for deception or to accuse them of lying would have been as foreign to the Jews and Jewish Christians of that time as an accusation of 'embellishment' against Shakespeare's Macbeth would be to us. The best proof for the solid faith in the resurrection is probably the realistic way in which the two oldest gospels [Matthew and Mark] describe the painful death of Jesus on the cross." I hope this quote will be enough to show the inaccuracy of believing that Christianity, during its earliest years, could have been influenced by legends and midrash prevelant in both Judea and the rest of the secular world.  --- [(JS), 164.58.96.126, on 9 March at 9:47 a.m.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.110.47.73 (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Midrash and Legends

message: It's probably just my ignorance of biblical studies, but I still don't get the logic of Wisdom. Is the argument that since the Q sayings are not personified Wisdom, they could not be a source of a Jesus myth? Or is it a more specific criticism of Wells? In any case, perhaps this could be made clearer? --Merzul 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still don't get it... 

message: I made some changes on the page about the Q document, and was asked to clarify on the talk page.  Doherty and Price (incorrectly) suggest that Q was originally attributed to the Hebrew figure of personified Wisdom (Hebrew: Chokmah, Greek: Sophia), present in Proverbs 9 and Q/Luke 11:49.  This is in part due to their incorrect identification of Q1's genre as a "proverb collection," while in fact it is more appropriately placed in the genre of "Ancient Near Eastern Instruction."  (Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 284-286, though the entire chapter is useful)  ANE instructions, Kloppenborg observes, are consistently attributed to a human and not a divine figure such as Wisdom.  Price and Doherty have each taken a step backward academically on their identification of Q's genre and subsequently its founder. Additionally, the claim that Q lacked a narrative is incorrect, though the bulk of it seems to be situated in chapters 3-7, focusing largely on the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus.  Admittedly, in comparison to the canonical gospels, Q's narrative is far less prominent, though clearly more so than in the surviving form of the Gospel of Thomas.  I hope this is more clear now.  I would also like to add that the heavy dependence on radical literature for this article, by means of thinly-veiled introduction clauses such as "Advocates of the JM hypothesis argue..." is in defiance of Wikipedia's prohibition against such literature as secondary sources. Zeichman 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Q Document

message: There was a huge list of books (references and further reading) in this article. Most of the references are cited in the body of the article. The further reading seems to me to be a rather biased selection. I don't think this massive un-annotated book list belongs in the article or helps much, but in case anyone wants to salvage some of it, here it is. NBeale 12:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of books 

message: I removed this word because I feel it makes the sentence and the logic of the sentence difficult to understand.  It also seems like the 'now' being referred to is indeterminate.  Will the use of the word 'now' in this sentence make it invalid in 10 years, in 20, in 2?  I think the point is clear without the word, 'now', and the reader generally knows how long it has been since the time of the original assertion.  Lastly, there seems to be a perjorative attribution to using the word 'now' in this sentence like it is being said with a sigh (maybe that last one is just me).Markisgreen 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted word 'now' 

message: In UK GCSE and A-level examinations, it is now acceptable in RE papers to approach a question from the perspective of the Jesus as Myth theory if it is viewed as relevant. Considering that creationism is not allowed in biology papers, nor the string theory allowed in chemistry papers, is this theory considered by scholars as readily debunked as this article claims it is?
:Basically, yes.  According to one of the key proponents of the Jesus-Myth theory, it is completely ignored by mainstream scholarship.  Doherty states:
::Van Voorst is quite right in saying that “mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant” [p.6, n.9]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt. 
:I don't know much about UK A-Level RE examinations, but re GCSE examinations, certainly in my day, on my board, (which is only about 6 years ago), we were marked not on the truth of our answers, but on whether we represented different peoples beliefs.  It was to do with trying to understand other peoples views.  Not to do with understanding the truth, nor to do with representing views that were scholarly representable, but to do with presenting views. At least, that's what I remember.  I may misremember. TJ 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK examinations 

message: I'd like to propose that the entire pro and con counter argument section be reconstructed as a methodology section.  Essentially I think the article should take the slant that the issue is one of methodology and terminology not a disagreement (too much) on fact.  jbolden1517Talk 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why you are placing so many passages in italics? Paul B 18:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quick way to mark what's a quote from what is being written in wikipedia's voice.  I could use blockquote to mix it up a bit.  Feel free to change style if you have a better way.  I'm not married to the style at all.  jbolden1517Talk 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very confusing - one whole section is in italics. Paul B 18:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Frankly, I'm not sure what you are doing. There are great chunks of text that appear in italics, but they are not clearly attrivuted, so I've no idea who they are quotaions from. Paul B 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully its clearer now that I got a chance to add more material.  You OK with the direction?  13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  methodology 

message: "meaningful historicity of Jesus" is gibberish. •Jim62sch• 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The point is that there may have been - say - some very strong bloke whose deeds were the kernel for the legend of Hercules, but there comes a point when there is no meaningful differece between a purely fictional figure and one whose legend is built on so slender and unexceptional grounds that it might just as well have been pure fiction. Paul B 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As opposed to meaningless?

message: TJ -- If you look at the chart below, you can see where This contrasts with the mainstream approach which holds that since Jesus is the "founder" of Christianity an understanding of early Christianity requires one to focus attention on the gospels even though dating is far less certain was going.  I think the reader needs to understand this point.  That is why Sanders, Vermes... arrive at different conclusions.  Could you rewrite this in a way you would find acceptable.  jbolden1517Talk 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  focus on gospels vs. focus on epistles 

message: This article requires significant upgrades.  Three editors nave taken upon themselves to destroy the original Jesus as Myth article, and put together this POV travesty.  Comparing the myths to Steamboat Willie and Mickey Mouse is an underhanded method to destroy the hypothesis.  This is ridiculous.  Orangemarlin 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the comparison being made.  I suggest you stop throwing a temper tantrum about the split and just read what's been written.  jbolden1517Talk 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. It doesn't appear you have read either the articles, nor the discussion above. The Mickey Mouse simile may be OR, but it is OR in support of the theory, so it really doesn't figure how you could say it is being used to "destroy the hypothesis". Unless, of course, you haven't understood it. Once you are at it (reading and trying to follow the debate), you could explain what gave you the impression of a "POV travesty". I am unsure even in what direction our alleged POV would be tending. I am really at a loss if  I am being accused of   pro-Jesus or anti-Jesus (pro-historicity or anti-historicity) bias, since I am really perfectly agnostic on the matter and simply setting right the presentation of various opinions. dab (𒁳) 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Temper tantrum?  Where's the civility?  OH, that's right, you changed the article without consensus or discussion, so maybe you don't understand civility from Wikipedia's standpoint.  You were wrong here bolden and bachmann.  Orangemarlin 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and OR tags 

message: could anyone explain why on earth you would want to afd Jesus Christ as myth, as a pov fork of this article? That's completely irrational. Preferredly, explain your reasons on that article's talkpage. Oh, and please look up "myth" in some good dictionary first. The article here for months laboured under the misapprehension that "myth" has anything to do with historicity. It appears that this article is about a theory that argues against the historicity of Jesus. It may or may not be a pov-fork of Historicity of Jesus, but how on earth can you allege a sober discussion of the mythology in the gospel is in any way a pov fork of this? I am especially confused since the people protesting do not appear to be victims of fundamentalist piety  but self-describe as skeptics. I am used to having problems getting plain reason across to religionists, but I am a little bit at a loss on how to recommend plain reason to rationalists... dab (𒁳) 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: afd

message: "rvv Kenosis. This is an attempt to prejudice a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as myth to make the two article appear similiar and influence votes"
Funny, Jbolden, weren't you the person who brought up AGF on the deletion page?  Thank you for proving my point.  •Jim62sch• 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AGF?

message: Why does the section "5 Mainstream scholarly reception" end in a comment by Doherty, himself decidedly not a part of that mainstream, which basically says that someone else should come along. Isn't this akin to a proponent of a minority view saying that one day (oh happy day) the majority will come to see the wisdom of the minority view and change its mind. Revision and changing minds are an essential part of all branches of scholarship but why should we give a platform to any one view in this? Str1977 (smile back) 09:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I do see your point... but I think there's arguably validity in assigning a special preference to the view of the subjects of the article, of which Doherty is a notable example, and the only one (I'm aware) that has commented on the subject. TJ 09:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems too be POV pushing to me in as much as it tries to even out the consensus of scholarship by pointing to a possible future change to this consensus. Str1977 (smile back) 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed that comment as I think it's inappropriate. As Str1977 said Doherty is NOT part of the mainstream and cannot be included in here. This is an encyclopaedia and not a discussion forum. Mercury543210 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doherty epilogue

message: I can see why including this phrase in the lede is a problem, but "Jesus as myth" is a relatively common phrase in describing this hypothesis, so it needs to be in there. Assuming that Jesus Christ as myth survives AfD (which I think it should), probably a better title needs to be found for that article to reduce confusion. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is what some of us have been saying here.  I've no objection to reverting my edit, which I described just below. ... Kenosis 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jesus as myth" 

message: PaulB and I just had the following exchange in the section above, which I'm reproducing here for convenience and visibility:
* :The big problem is the dumb similarity of the titles (Jesus Christ as myth and Jesus-myth hypothesis), and the numerous redirects pointing hither and thither (Jesus-myth, Jesus as myth etc) but I am unwilling to change the title while the RfD is ongoing. Paul B 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the title has always been problematic.  So's the difference between "historicity of Jesus" and "historical Jesus" and a good few other things. "Jesus as myth" is only problematic because of the "Jesus as man" vs. "Jesus as myth" issue.  I'm going to remove the reference to "Jesus as myth" in the lead of the article so as not to unnecessarily confound this discussion. ... Kenosis 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight change in the article lead

message: The rsults of "goggling":
:"Jesus-myth hypothesis" – 66
:"Jesus myth theory" – 261
:"Jesus myth" – 60,800
:"Jesus as myth" – 685
Notice something there?  Virtually no one calls it a theory or hypothesis.  Kinda odd, no?
Also, can we get rid of all the damned AKA's in the lead -- most criminals don't have that many AKA's.
Obviously this article has other issues as well, issues that might be partially resolved with the resoration and complete rewriting of the stuff siphoned off to create the POV fork. •Jim62sch• 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict that a move to Jesus myth will result in all sorts of complaints about the title being POV. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that Jesus myth alone can be seen as an endorsement. And it is a hypothesis (not really a theory). Str1977 (smile back) 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's not an endorsement, that's what it's called.  Hell, the Jesus Christ article can be seen as an endorsement of Jesus' divinity, or at least messiahship (which was not a claim to divinity, by the way). •Jim62sch• 19:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Of AKA's and poor titles

message: I've removed the following paragraph from the section on "Early non-Christian references to Jesus", placed here for future reference to any potentially useful content and/or to the sources placed within it. Str1977 and I discussed this in the talk section above on redundancy. ... Kenosis 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph

message: I see this article and think, why can't it look just like the article on Appollo for example? Why is the language so slanted? Just be matter of fact , not so embarrassingly opinionated. Grrose 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  too slanted