Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 4

message: :"...the day each week officially dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the day of the invincible sun, in turn being renamed Sunday". Primarily for dating purposes.  The Germanic precursor to "Sunday" was borrowed as a direct translation in the 3rd Century CE, and dies solis itself may be a literal translation of the Koine "hēmera hēlion".  I tried finding a good ref, but didn't find anything good enough.
:"...Jesus being more likely to have been born in April or September..."  June or July have also been advanced as likely months.  The simple fact remains that there is no way to fix the time specificially (If only Matthew or Luke would have used Zodiac signs ;) (I jest, I jest). •Jim62sch• 15:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things that ''really'', '''''really''''' need sourcing

message: Possibly because of the easy available of computerized production tools, and the availability of the internet as a distribution channel has created more and more conspiracy theories. One recent example is Zeitgeist, the movie. I just finished watching it. I have to admit, it is pretty amazing. Some elements of truth are in it, but there are some bits of pure nonsense. Presenting in a compelling way, for sure. Contains some material relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. --Filll 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeitgeist, the movie 

message: Many scholars and historians since then and today refute this theory.
?sbandrews (t) 12:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: how is that weasly? It's factual, and discussed in detail in the article body. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: do we realy need to have it twice :)  sbandrews (t) 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words in intro

message: Connected to the above conversation - does anyone have any objections to changing the intro, currently:
:The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Jesus myth[1][2][3] refers to the idea that the mythological aspects of the narrative of Jesus in the gospels indicate that there was no historical Jesus, and that the figure of Jesus Christ is a construct of Christian mythology, which parallels mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism and the myths of rebirth deities.
To:
:The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Jesus myth[1][2][3] refers to the idea that the mythological aspects of the narrative of Jesus in the gospels indicate that there was no historical Jesus, and that the figure of Jesus is a construct of various forms of ancient mythology, and which has little or no historical basis.
I'll probably replace in 24 hours or so if no-one objects - just felt it might be nice to check beforehand rather than go into the more rough, argumentative, way that changes in this article normally develop. TJ 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jesus myth hypothesis[1][2][3], also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, refers to the idea that the mythological aspects of the narrative of Jesus in the gospels indicate that the figure of Jesus is a construct of various forms of ancient mythology, and that there was no historical Jesus.
this seems to be in line with this referencesbandrews (t) 08:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The first reference of the reference 1 triad  is just a website with the title jesusmyth and not an article on the subject, is that appropriate? sbandrews (t) 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference question

message: *"mythographic perspectives on Jesus" 1,470 ghits (note that "mythographic" isn't even a real word)
*"Jesus and comparative mythology" 685 ghits
*"Jesus myth hypothesis"  1,220 ghits - note the first few incidences (other than wikipedia) seem to indicate it a term used on Christian sites.
*"Jesus myth" 63,700 ghits. I've looked through the first 100 or so links and the vast majority of them deal with the historicity question straight out. Accrued mythology is discussed but as a justification of questioning the historicity of Jesus.
*"Jesus as myth"   5,390 ghits. Again most non wiki echoes deal with the surrounding myths to question the historicity of Jesus.
I really don't see where the confusion is and would like to see some justification for rationale behind the "3 confused groups". 
On a final note the pre split article did not have strong support. We all admitted it was a poor article but were having great trouble improving it as it constantly gets hijacked by editors with little knowledge of the subject but a huge conviction that it is wrong.  Sophia 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to a change in title, so long as the new title accurately reflects the content.  I want to voice my support, though, for the present "tripartite" delegation of historicity, mythological aspects, and this article, in addition to Jesus Christ from a scriptural and theological standpoint.  ... Kenosis 18:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article"???? Sounds like the leftovers at a party.  Sophia 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sophia frankly that's your fault.  There was a lot of content that ended up getting killed in late May early June.  About 2/3rds of Well's theory was covered, and then had Pearson, Berger and Doherty relative to Wells.  (note they all agree they are in the Wells school so this isn't OR).    We also had the start of a historical development.  That's a solid article on the topic.  The reason the article died is that you have consistently insisted on rejecting treating these authors the way Wikipedia treats most minority theories, as a simply a historical summary.  jbolden1517Talk 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said in the section above, this ought be fairly straightforward.  Sophia's search that returned 63,700 hits for "Jesus myth" would appear to indicate that the current title is appropriate. Recall that the word "hypothesis" was added because of definitional quirks that resulted from the phrase "Jesus myth" when used as a title.  If there's a case to be made for another title to reflect the content involving hypotheses that Jesus is a complete myth in any meaningful historical sense, I'm all ears, and I would imagine other users would also be willing to listen. ... Kenosis 23:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now don't that say it all? If this is to be the Wells' school article then title should be "The Jesus Myth" as that is the title of his book. Freke and Gandy, Thompson, Allegro and Pagels would have no place in such an article so they would then need to move elsewhere.  Sophia 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do recall that part, where the split occurred seemingly overnight (poof!). Why would Freke and Gandy, along with Pagels and these others, not have a place in this article? Not that I'd necessarily object, but why split the other skeptics of historicity off from Wells? ... Kenosis 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would Pagels have a place in this article? Has she ever doubted that there was a historical Jesus? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  My reponse was hasty in drawing on what Sophia had said. Theorists of the "Jesus myth" and other such approaches including the composite-of-multiple-persons idea would draw on Pagels, but that would be about as relevant as it would get, I should think. The others Sophia mentioned, Thompson, Allegro, I'm not familiar with. ... Kenosis 06:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pagels explores the parallels between older myths in the same way that the others I mentioned do. She, like Allegro and Thompson, don't come down definitively one way or another on the historicity as you can never prove a negative (i.e. Jesus did not exist). If we are sticking to the Wells' school then they are not of that group - they cross boundaries with the comparative mythology crowd as Freke and Gandy do.  Sophia 06:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, Sophia. As I said, I'm not familiar with Allegro and Thompson.  So, we can reasonably agree these three basic topic can remain as, very roughly: (1) historicity. (2) historicity plus-or-minus mythology, (3) non-historicity, presently Jesus myth hypothesis but not necessarily the permanent title of this aritcle? Plus Jesus Christ, of course, with the possiblity of other potentially notable and appropriate topic forks remaining open? ... Kenosis 07:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problems with all this article name messing about

message: So it's very interesting how so many points refuting this idea go to books, or texts that really can't be reached via internet.  Meaning you'd have to be lucky enough to be at the library to check the accuracy of these points.  How can this so easily be accepted as believable because of "my source! my source is there!"??
Anyone else seeing this potential isssue?Aceholiday 12:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Actually, technically, we prefer published sources, as printed matter doesn't disappear as quickly as some webpages do. However, we do have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check unit if you think some of the sources might not exist, and I regret I have to say that in some cases (although not necessarily this one) some of these sources themselves might not be the most reliable. Are then any particular areas you are questioning? I'm not sure whether anyone would count me as being a fair and accurate party, although I try to be, and I could check on those I can find in some of the local college libraries here. No guarantees on how fast, though. John Carter 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF sourcing??? 

message: This section reads very awkwardly, as if it were snuck while no one was watching. At the very least, it is out of place. Adding to my skepticism about its providence is the fact that "jesus" is lower-case, and the quasi-referencing used for the citation. Thoughts? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note the profoundly inappropriate inclusion of the cited reference, which is to only a web page. I think this section could be probably extremely easily deleted on the basis of inadequate referencing. John Carter 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have removed it.  It takes too much effort to work out what it means to be useful there, and is a single sentence that could more appropriately be fitted into the following paragraph, if it can be shown that any notable Jesus-mythers argue something like that.  And stuck in with at least some respect for grammar and clarity.  TJ 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Historical references to Jesus are debunked" 

message: The following section does not refer to Jesus-mythers using the argument:
:Some historians argue that scholarship lacks any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As J. D. Crossan, a well respected scholar of early Christianity, comments, "I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata".[50] While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that the Paul described in Acts, or even Napoleon, did not exist, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe it does call into question the results of historical inquiry into Jesus of Nazareth.
Initially it did, without stating who (it mentions Crossan, but he is NOT a JMer) before a number of edits by myself and Paul Barlow.  If it isn't used by them, it should be removed as either WP:OR in relation to this page - it's an original argument when used to support the JM theory - or irrelevant.  Does anyone know of any JMer's who use this argument?  TJ 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossan Methodology section 

message: Is there anything to be said about the guy who advertised in the back of many U.S. magazines during the 1980's, claiming to have proof that Josephus invented Jesus? AnonMoos 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. The usual argument is that Josephus' references to Jesus (or at least, those that seem particularly fawning) are a later Christian interpolation. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Josephus inventing Jesus?

message: Under "Mainstream Scholarly reception," there are two seemingly contradictory arguments against the Jesus-myth hypothesis. One claims that "Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure." Yet another says that from a Roman point of view, the life of Jesus was "not a major event." The former relies on the assumption that the Romans would care greatly about Jesus's existence. The latter relies on the assumption that they did not care at all.
IGlowInTheDark 7:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right about the first point, which is not cited to any opponent of the JMH. Still, it's true that some Romans did care - particularly when Christianity finally started to become powerful, and there is no recorded case of ancient anti-Christian polemicists saying J did not exist. Paul B 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction?

message: "Mainstream Scholarly response" is inaccurate and heavy POV. I changed it to "Criticism" per request. I see that somebody changed "Criticism" to "Scholarly Criticism" as the original request sugggested. I find the addition of the word scholarly to be redundant and POV, not to mention UW. Also, this thing about the majority of scholars is clearly POV. There are numbers of actual historians and theologians (although not as many in the theo camp)who either support the theory completely or remain skeptical of the prohistorical position/methodology. Donald Akenson (award winning historian) comes to mind. Phyesalis 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I don't think criticism is ambiguous. I think the "scholarly" aspect of "scholarly response" is made clear both by the scholastic nature of the article and the nature of Wikipedia article expectations. Also "response" suggests one unified position, which is generally unheard of in the diversity of scademic discourse. I think "Criticism" is a neutral way to introduce the opposing point of view. I think it should be changed back to "criticism" to avoid the implication that this is not a valid scholarly position. As a compromise, I would accept "Theological Criticisms" if "Criticisms" is found to be too ambiguous. Phyesalis 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Theologocial criticisms" suggest that the criticisms are theologically based and not based on scholarly research. I would prefer "criticism" under the understanding that we're referring to the scholarly type of criticism to "theological criticism". As with my other comment. This might be better discussed in the straw poll section. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See the straw poll above where I give my reasoning for preferring "scholarly criticism" to simply "criticism" (it's more precise). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ben. I will continue my response up there. Phyesalis 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also going to respond up there. TJ 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism v. Scholarly criticism 

message: Akhilleus asked on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Jesus_myth_hypothesis for input from outside parties. My twopence: the subject is controversial, and I do not think that citations from books published by Eerdmans can decide the issue. In the 19th century there was severe doubt among many theologians. The "Radikalkritik" also doubted Paul's existence. Since then two things have happened: some early New Testament snippets have been discovered, and the doubters have left the field. I suspect that the second reason is the most important one for the diminished support of myth hypotheses in academic circles. /Pieter Kuiper 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to the Burridge/Gould quote, but there are also quotes from Michael Grant (a classical historian), Van Voorst, and a quote from Earl Doherty (one of the proponents of the theory), all saying that this theory has no support within academia. That's a good indication that it's a fringe theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The references at the end of the lead (Grant and Burridge/Gould) are produced to say that it is fringe not to believe in an historical Jesus. Well, the Dutch classical historian Henk Versnel says in this interview (where he dismisses Francesco Carotta out of hand) that the consensus is that there is no consensus. That is not completely true, but the scholars who say that every reputable scholar agrees that Jesus existed are very often Christians. /Pieter Kuiper 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the question holds only so much interest for historians with no ideological motivation. So I think the communis opinio is something like "yeah, it's likely, nothing speaks against it, but who knows. now let's talk about something interesting." I mean, the historical Jesus will turn out to have been just some bloke. The "resurrected" Jesus of Christian doctrine holds infinitely more interest than another random wandering rabbi. dab (𒁳) 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest the following: actively making the argument that Jesus did not exist is clearly, at this point, a fringe position.  On the other hand, one can express uncertainty on the question, as Dab says, without being on the fringe.  So I wouldn't say that "every reputable scholar agrees that Jesus existed."  I would rather say "No reputable scholar is willing to make a substantive argument that Jesus did not exist."  john k 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that sums it up perfectly. dab (𒁳) 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't pretend to understand the debate. The evidence of historicity seems compelling to me as a clueless dilettante dabbler in things early medieval, just as it will probably seem feeble to a keen atheist teenage student of science. It depends what kind of proof you expect. Anyway, surely this belongs in Historical Jesus? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, there's enough substance here to justify its own article. And we don't have to decide whether or not the Jesus myth theory is true--all we're discussing here is whether the theory is a major part of the discussion of the historical Jesus, or just a fringy sidecurrent. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that goes without saying. As it happens, it is a fringy side-current and hence should be presented as such. I fail to see why the "atheist teenage student of science" should tend to embrace it, since the same person probably won't convert to Islam because he thinks Muhammad is historical, or to Scientology because he thinks Ron L. Hubbard really lived. The historicity of Jesus is completely unrelated (orthogonal) to acceptance or rejection of Christian tenets of faith. Things may lie different with the historicity of the actual resurrection of Christ, but this isn't under discussion here. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find Richard Carrier on youtube saying "Probably not" to the question of whether Jesus existed. You can find Robert M Price saying the onus of proof has shifted to the those who believe Jesus existed. I think they are serious scholras. E4mmacro 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are. However, you havve only pointed toward two scholars who contest the point. The consensus view of the remainder of the scholars apparently disagrees with them, possibly strongly. Any argument which has only two major proponents in this field almost certainly qualifies as "fringe". John Carter 23:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: It doesn't seem like this article is using the academic definition of "myth". The term "myth" has often been equated to a false story in popular usage, but this is not the academic definition of myth. Myths can be based on real people and therefore even if Jesus lived, it doesn't change the fact that the story of Jesus is mythological. Same with the Illiad......while the Illiad is considered "mythology".....it is still based on events that occured in the past such as the seige of a state referred later on as Troy. The definition of the term "myth" is; "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." None of this definition has anything to do with being a historical figure or not. And the Jesus story fits this definition. Zachorious (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but no one has managed to come up with a better name for the article. If you can come up with a way to say "article about the hypothesis that Jesus was not historical" that works as a title, please post your suggestion. Peterdgi (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zachorious is right.  There are various myths attached to people who we know beyond any doubt existed.  George Washington and the cherry tree is a well known example as are the various myths associated with Davy Crocket, Jesse James, Wild Bill Hickok, and many others of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  Perhaps "non-historical Jesus hypothesis" as an alternative title might better separate this from "The mythologization of Jesus hypothesis" where Jesus is thought to be historical but many of his deeds were embellished on for decades or even centuries after his death.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What definition of myth is used here? 

message: I am unhappy about including Price's objections on 2 grounds: 1) they're self-published cf WP:SPS and 2) his conclusion is not that Jesus didn't exist, just that he thinks we can't find the 'real' Jesus in the material available to us. A rather different conclusion I think. Mercury543210 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Price has a spectrum of positions. He has made arguments that the burden of proof is on positivists and that Jesus did not exist. (I am somewhat familiar with his more recent views, but he isn't really one of my interests). As for SPS, I'm not sure, he is a noted scholar who has been published extensively in peer-review journals. It's not like he's just some random guy who set up his own homepage. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not 'familiar' with Price's work, anyone who has a 'spectrum of positions' doesn't come across as very authoritative. Which of his 'positions' are we quoting here? Is it his 'current' position? I still think remove the quote. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's the no-Jesus position. As for being able to argue multiple points of an issue as some kind of disqualification - I hardly think so. Actually, not being tied to a particular ideological presupposition is usually the sign of reliable expertise. When I said that Price had a spectrum of positions, it seems as if he has made a series of shifts in his thinking. His spectrum of positions are pretty linear in development. Conversely, how many peer-review articles have authors like Van Voorst and Grant published? I mean let's establish one thing - The van Voorst and the Grant quotes are not published in peer-review material - they are, in effect, popular books, not academic. van Voorst's book was not reviewed in any journal I've been able to find. So before we start casting aspersions on peer-reviewed authors let us consider the weight of the material against it. Eerdmans has a known reputation for being a conservative, if not reactionary, evangelical press. Grant's book is a reprint of a popular title from the seventies. I haven't gotten to B&G yet (it's that time of year). This article seems to have a particular pro-evidentialist apologetics bias to it based on materials with undue weight. Phyesalis (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert M Price quote

message: The entry states that most "ideas" covered by the term "share the common premise that the narrative of the Gospels portrays a figure who never actually existed", yet it also suggests they conclude "that there was no historical Jesus". Hence, either the Jesus myth argument is circular, or the entry is misleading... Terjen (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that it isn't circular since there are actually subtle, yet relevant, distinctions. One can argue that the Gospels only portray Jesus Christ as they are post-Easter narratives (composed after authors had accepted the divinity of the risen Christ) and therefore do not portray a historical figure. This is a mythical view of JC (this where there is some overlap between comparative religion and more explicit Jesus myth arguments. The idea that Jesus Christ is a myth is a cultural and academic precursor to the idea that Jesus of Nazareth (historical) is a myth. There's a lot of grey area between those two positions.  Both are relevant to this page. Phyesalis (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are relevant to this page, yes, but this page is actually *about* the latter.  That's a significant part, to my mind, of the justification of the split between this and the other article on Jesus and mythology. TJ (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular or not