Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 6

message: This line was removed: "However, modern scholarly discussion and support opposes the hypothesis." This line is way over the top POV-pushing in my mind. Saying that something is a minority opinion is one thing, saying that scholars as a whole oppose it is way beyond pointing out relative weights to taking a full side. Merely quoting a number of authors claiming that the field as a whole rejects it suggests that those people are somehow allowed to talk for the entire field, and that anyone who says otherwise isn't a scholar. That's completely unacceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that edit myself, so I don't have much gripe with you disagreeing with that wording. TJ (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly discussion OPPOSES

message: "Richard Burridge and Graham Gould stated that they did not know of any "respectable" scholars that held the view today." -- This lines seems especially inflammatory, consisting of nothing but a major personal attack/poisoning of the well. Certainly the scholars who disagree think they are respectable, and might believe that Burridge and Gould are not worthy of respect. DreamGuy (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just citing what some people said, per WP:NPOV - the word "respectable" is quoted precisely to enable people like you to interpret it in that way!  TJ (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV policy doesn't say that just citing what some people say automatically means a statement is neutral. How such statements are presented, how many, where, in what context, etc. makes a lot of difference (this is the basis behind WP:UNDUE weight and other aspects within the NPOV policy). This statement in a list of reasons to oppose the theory sounds like an endorsement of the claim. If it's paired (in the same section, not split up) with a proponent of the theory pointing out that most of the people most strongly opposed to the hypothesis are theologians then both sides get their say in context. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had a reliable source for that quote, and it was referenced accordingly, I might well agree with you! TJ (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a quote, and it seemed like a reliable source for the opinion, and it was referenced... yet you yourself removed it. You can't pick and choose who you consider reliable solely to suit your own agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I did already insert his response there, actually - the bit about interests both secular and religious (thereby confirming that a lot of non-religious people disagree) campaigning against it - I think it's balanced already, and I'm not sure I see the point of citing everything he's ever said on the subject. TJ (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would add here that with the section above, you are trying to have your cake and eat it to - arguing for both sides of the coin, so long as they agree with you. I believe that the intent of the word in their quotes is to apply to professional historians and scholars, with PhD's and recognized in their field as such, instead of crank's or mere students.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So instead of addressing the arguments they direct their comments to the "respectability" of the persons putting them forward. Is that an ad hominem attack I wonder? Hmmmmmmm......  Sophia 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it could be considered such, though to be fair it does have the uniqueness of having numbers to back itself up. Happy? I don't believe I ever zealously argued for those quotes to stay in, anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 17:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: By the standards the late Carl Sagan put for in his book Demon Haunted World there is plenty of baloney on both sides go around but a good hunk is in the Pro historical Jesus side.  Weasel words such as those quoted by Grant abound.  The one thing Carl Sagan warned against which is at the heart of this issue is appeal to authority.  I have mentioned before how simply on the merit of his impressive credentials Lavoisier was able to ram his flawed caloric theory down the throat of science and the few who were able through experimentation were able to show Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory were dismissed simply because their credentials weren't as good as Lavoisier.  In his series Day the Universe Changed James Burke correctly pointed out how when a sea change is just about to occur in a scientific view of how the world works or view on a historical event 'you see some scientists clutching to the old theories like grim death'--216.234.222.130 (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "respectable" 

message: The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can;t be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes."  It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself.  There were actually two other problems.  Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all.  I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing).  The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section.  I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am.  In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus. TJ (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is a problem. The lead needs to state that the JM hypothesis is not widely accepted in academia, and there can be a longer section in the body that deals with the (relatively few) scholarly responses to specific authors (e.g., Van Voorst's criticism of Price). But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: hammering a message home

message: I have a problem with using Grant as a source. From his whole body of work, he basically devotes a couple paragraphs to the subject, essentially to let his readers know that nobody important takes the subject seriously. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But remember what we're using him as a source for. He's one example of scholars who say that the JM theory isn't taken seriously in academia. If he's right, why would he devote more than a few paragraphs to the theory? He's already paid more attention to it than most scholars who write about Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Grant comes off as a very poor example.  The majority of the quote is actually Grant quoting two other authors: Otto Betz ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from 1968 and Dunkerley from 1957 ("again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars") with him throwing in things like 'In recent years' (Recent?!  Last time I checked 20 years was considered a generation!) and 'or at any rate very few' (Basically Grant hasn't even bothered to check in the 20 years since Dunkerley wrote this and so doesn't know) around the Dunkerley quote. If anything Grant would seem to to support Doherty's position that that no body even thinks there is enough merit the Jesus never existed part of JM to even check to see if perhaps it might have some validity.  I find it amusing to see Akhilleus still defending a quote that he knows to be partly in error.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Grant may be a reliable source for a number of topics, but having mentioned some personal opinions in a minor way on this topic does not make him either a reliable or notable source on this topic. Furthermore, his claim that the entire field rejects the topic *might* be relevant for whether he and many others at the time he said it think on the topic, but it in no way *proves* that there *is* a consensus, so the wording has to be very precise on these things. Quoting five authors trying to speak for an entire field only proves their opinions, not the opinions of the entire field, and certainly not for "scholars" and "historians" in general, which would include the people supporting the Jesus myth hypothesis. The whole slant of this article right now isn't trying to cover the topic objectively, it's try to savage the idea. And we can certainly see that intent in the comments of posters here on the talk page and in edit comments. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements of academics in a given field are certainly reliable sources for the state of the field.  If you disagree with the source, or believe it to be incorrect, then produce a reliable source to the contrary. --Haemo (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree if there was actually an attempt by the supposed "academics" to shows why the Jesus myth is flawed then to use weasel words or quotes for other other authors whose research seems to be minimal at best.--216.31.14.232 (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually many of the sources are anything but 'fine' because they are being used to slant the neutrality of the article.  Grant's quote of two other authors is a prime example.   To see if Grant's arguments actually have merit you have to go to these earlier authors and see what they say and how good their research was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grant as a source

message: The Dun quote looks dodgy and I want to look it up but there isn't enough info there - how do I find it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.137.29 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see any quote by Dunn. I do see a sentence that is cited to Dunn (2003)--this is in footnote 63--and Dunn (2003) is listed in the "Books arguing for a historical Jesus" section as Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Christianity in the Making Vol 1: Jesus Remembered. Wm B Eerdmans Pub Co. That's the source you want to be looking at, I think, unless I've missed something. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dunn quote

message: The "Scholarly response" section of this article is a quote farm, and should be deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's an ancient historian, as has been said many times on this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not answer the question. Is Michael Grant (author) his article? If so there is nothing there that says that he is an historian, or that he is particularly ancient either (rather he seems to be dead). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's his article. "Ancient historian" means someone who works on the history of ancient Greece and Rome. Grant is indeed dead, so perhaps I should have said that he was an ancient historian. If his article doesn't say that he was one, it should--actually, a quote in the beginning says that he was a classical historian, which is the same thing as an ancient historian. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. To me "ancient historian" just means a very old historian. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It should be possible to keep the section, and maintain its effectiveness, while reducing the dependence on direct quotes. But if you want to do it differently, that should be OK too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholarly response

message: I've already said above why I think this sentence should remain, but to remind people, I'll just quote myself:
:    I think I put that in, and it comes straight out of Van Voorst. I'm sorry it comes across as an attempt to belittle people; Van Voorst is commenting on the fact that there's no serious interest in the JM idea in academia, but there's active discussion of the idea in other fora, especially online. He's pointing out a disconnect between the way scholars and amateurs deal with the idea, which I think is an interesting aspect of this topic--the fact that lots of people are interested in this idea despite the fact that you won't find it taught in school. Someone I read, I think it might be Van Voorst, mentions that he often gets asked about the JM hypothesis when he gives public lectures--and he finds it strange.
:   If people don't think this belongs in the lead, that's fine with me, but I think some variation of the "no scholarly interest/active amateur interest" contrast should be stated somewhere in the article, if it can be phrased in a way that doesn't seem condescending. 
It looks like I forgot to sign the first time--sorry about that! --Akhilleus (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that, because Van Voorst wrote it, it belongs in the introduction? If you think it important, find someplace aside from the introduction to put it. Thank you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said why I think it's important. I think it belongs in the lead because I think the lead sections of articles should place the subject of the article in a wider context--here, the lead should say where the JM hypothesis fits into the history of religious studies, and how it's received in academia and by the public at large. The citation from Van Voorst gives us a way to do that without straying into original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has everything necessary to establish notability without that sentence. The subject could go elsewhere in the, for instance in its own section, but Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. Whatever the case, that sentence does not fit with the rest of the intro, and sticks out like a bandaged toe. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever. The sentence was not about "trivia", but a possible way of establishing that the theory is popular outside of academia. Now the intro contains no mention of the theory's popularity. If people are happy with that, that's fine with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must pop over to the Resurrection of Jesus article and add that it's popular outside academia - and much discussed on the internet.  Sophia 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you say above that the JM is not "an academically widespread view - it is a minority interest that has captured a lot of popular attention"? Do you have a suggestion about how the "popular attention" part of the equation should be phrased? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Popular" is pretty subjective. Maybe we should stick with notable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  actively discussed on the internet 

message: Disagree entirely with merger. WP:UNDUE would be used to make this subject effectively go away. Job done some might say but this is  a notable enough topic for it's own article.  Sophia 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I'm not sure that size is the issue here (since there is considerable overlap) but since the consensus seems to be 'oppose' I think that's the way to go.  I've removed the tag from 'Historicity of Jesus' as well--Ludwigs2 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I have removed some external links that were either blogs, or self published, or dead. WP encourages going light on external links, but if I mistakenly removed something that is acceptable, or missed something that is not, just correct my mistakes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I did some restructuring of this paragraph dealing with the origins of the subject at hand - with the purpose of neutrality in mind.  I have read only descriptions and excerpts from the writings of the men involved, so I based my edit mostly on the article as it was, and the references I had at hand.  My big concern was not only the POV, but also that this crucial paragraph be easy for the average reader to comprehend.  Of note is that I used some different terms - I thought that what was written seemed to be a deliberate placing and emphasis on the "sun" - leading readers to see a correlation with "son" - without any concrete reference or excerpt from work of the men discussed that would give that emphasis any credibility.  I also added a cite for references - and if the original wording was based on any existing text, it would be more credible to have some actual quotes with reference to the works from which they were drawn.  No agenda whatsoever on my part - just an attempt to smooth  the paragraph out and give it more objectivity with less use of potential "word pointing." Dmodlin71 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess that I don't really understand what POV you are referring to (pro or anti JMH?). The Sun Myth theory is from Max Muller. The fact that sun sounds like son is only true in English (and to a much lesser extent in other Germanic languages). It's not true in other languages ('fils'; 'soleil' in French for example) or in ancient languages. I will add a citation from Muller shortly, since I have several of his works and books about him here. Paul B (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historicity of Jesus (background) paragraph reworked

message: Why is this mentioned at all? The lead states that the JMT is a modern theory (19th century and later); there's not much chance of confusing it with an ancient heresy. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the article on docetism does mention the Qur'an among "Texts including docetism" so the concept is hardly "ancient heresy".--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of Christianity, it's an ancient heresy. The Qur'an isn't exactly a modern text, either. I see no reason to mention Docetism in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible isn't exactly a modern text either.  The point is that the idea of Docetism does show up in some modern ideas and not those of just scholars.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this was just intended as disambiguation.  I mean, when you are asking whether Jesus was a historical being, the possibility that he was a non-corporeal projection kind of throws peanut butter on the popcorn.  can a non-corporeal projection really be considered 'historical'?  --Ludwigs2 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that it's intended as disambiguation, but I don't see why it's necessary. I ask again: the article makes it plain that we're dealing with a theory that took definitive shape in the 19th century. Why would anyone confuse that with a heresy whose heyday was the 2nd century? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it all depends on what you call 'historical'.  The reports of Spring Heeled Jack are certainly historical but it is uncertain if that term can be applied to Spring Heeled Jack himself.  Even if Jesus had been a non-corporeal projection you still run into many of the same problems the Pro-Jesus Myth side has with a living breathing Jesus c4 BC-c29 CE:  if the Gospels are even remotely accurate why didn't anyone during this period record his ministry which according to Bishop Irenaeus c180 CE supposedly lasted between 10 to 20 years.  Then you have all the people on what is known as the Remsberg List which lists over 40 possible people who could have noted Jesus but didn't.  The issue of why the over 20 year gap between Jesus dying and the first formal Gospel and why Paul doesn't seem to cite any really definable events from Jesus life on earth and on and on it goes.  Typing this about the only relevance that I see Docetism having is the idea the crusifiction was an illusion and I think I agree with Akhilleus; it just doesn't seem to fit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, let me suggest to solutions, if there's anyone who really thinks the line should remain.  (1) move it to a footnote as a minor disclaimer.  (2) remove it, but add one of those disambiguation lines at the top of the article - you know... for related topics, see Docetism, Euhemerization, ...  --Ludwigs2 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: There is almost no doubt that Spring Heeled Jack was a real person, but that the reports of his actions produced widespread panic, many copycats and hysterical exaggerations. That's essentially the same as the mainstream view of Jesus. Why on earth you think that a minor preacher should be mentioned by lots of authors is a mystery. The evidence we have for most Jewish messainc claimants of the period is miniscule. See the tiny amount of evidence we have about Theudas and Judas of Galilee. This is simply normal given that only a tiny proportion of texts survive from the era. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, a tiny proportion of texts survive from the era.  But then you hit the reasons WHY so few texts survive; neglect, cultural disintegration, and most importantly the Christians themselves.  The destruction of what remained of the Library of Alexandria in 391 and 415 by Christian zealots shows that there were those who feared what others wrote and would go to any lengths to see those views destroyed.  As for a "mainstream" view on Jesus, other that he existed I really don't see that there is one; every scholar seems to have their own view on what is reliable and what is not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of interest, do you have any reliable sources which prove that the Library of Alexandria was destroyed in 391 and 415 by 'Christian zealots'?  You seem to claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them.  Do you have any reliable evidence for this claim?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not (I suppose a quick visit to Wikipedia's article on the Library of Alexander was disappointing).  That's very illuminating.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 415 date comes from Carl Sagan in his book Cosmos.  The 391 date is based on the order by Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to destroy all pagan temples and is referenced in Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  Easy to find if you bother to look.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it?  That's all you have?  Carl Sagan is not an authority on the subject, and on this matter he is flat out wrong.  Gibbon's anti-Christian bias is well known, and his error well documented.  The fact that you cited Sagan first shows me that you haven't even read Gibbon yourself, you just read Sagan's throwaway reference to Gibbon in Sagan's work (which you clearly did not read critically).  For more on this fascinating subject, you can read either the Wikipedia article, or Bede's.  Both will demonstrate that the Library suffered destruction at the hands of Julius Caesar in the 1st century BC, and later at the hands of the pagan emperor Aurelian in the 3rd century AD, before anything happened to it at the hands of Christians.  Clearly you were completely ignorant of this.  The decree of Theophilus ordered the destruction of pagan temples, not the Library of Alexandria.  I note that you've provided no evidence for your previous spectacular claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, Bruce, I'd say it's you who hasn't bothered to look: Carl Sagan isn't a great source for ancient history. Gibbon, while a great stylist and an interesting read, has been superseded on many points, and current classical scholars are far less certain when the library burned. Of course, even if the library was burned by Christians in 391 or 415 or whatever, that wouldn't have exactly wiped out all classical texts... --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan, you do know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for articles (and why using it to support anything is questionable at best), right?  Furthermore you do know that Bebe's is a self published site of questionable quality?  The statement "The first misconception is that the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge about the world." ("Do Science and Chrisitianity Conflict?") and the examples that follow to support the point are oversimplistic.  The examples given in "Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth" are similarly simplistic as are the ones in "Refuting the myth that Jesus never existed".  The comparison with Hannibal is another one of those half-truth examples ignoring the fact there is archeological evidence (coins and the like) that shows Hannibal existed; none of this exists for Jesus.  The majority of the site is full of nonsense like that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grubb, I'm well aware that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles, and nor can self published material (that's 'Bede', not 'Babe' by the way).  I am not using them for either.  Your petty (and inaccurate), attacks on Bede's site are simply an attempt to run away from the issue, which was your completely false claims regarding the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, which don't even belong here.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Akhilleus, I see you are resorting to strawmen to salvage this.  Who are these "current classical scholars"?  Furthermore remember that both the Christians and the Arabs had a vested interest in what documents survived and which became either kindling or mold food.  The 20th century has shown us efforts to totally rewrite history by oppressive governments so why why not something similar back then?  We know the eagerness with which the Donation of Constantine (a 12th century forgery claiming to be written in the 4th) was accepted by the Church but it wasn't until the 15th that actual serious research into it was done.  The Acts of Pilate (4th) and its supposed letter from Pilate to Emperor Claudius is another example.  Basically if the fox is not in the hen house he is certainly guarding it--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A text book example of a logical fallacy.  Just because X has happened at various times in the past, and just because it is possible that X could have happened at a given time in the past, does not mean that X did happen at that given time in the past.  If you had any evidence to support your previous claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them, you would have presented it by now.  You don't.  There isn't any.  And this Talk page is not the place for this discussion.  Stay with the topic please, which is discussion of the content of this Wikipedia article.  If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be here.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More like a text book example of ignorance of basic historical fact.  The fact is that those who were in the best position to salvage ancient text had a vested interest in what survived.  This was not a one time event but over centuries.  We know that throughout its history Christianity were not above making claims, creating documents, and ignoring/destroying others to support their claims.  Take a look at Bishop Irenaeus' claims c180 CE about the age of Jesus in his Against Heresies, Book 2 chapter 24 paragraph 5 to see what I mean.  Even with the little we know Bishop Irenaeus is clearly talking nonsense and yet certainly one would have expected some sort of rebuttal by leaders in the various groups he said were heresies, but no such works are known to us.  In fact compared to those who refute them counter arguments are next to nil.  If Argument from Silence is not a good argument to challenging the existence of Jesus then it is not a good argument against such documents existing and being destroyed by either active effort or passive neglect.  Besides Bishop Irenaeus admits that certain heresies were written down and yet some of those don't exist either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not a text book example of 'ignorance of basic historical fact'.  I'm properly educated on this subject, whereas you are not.  By the way, you are continuing to violate WP:SOAP.  If you had any evidence to support your previous claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them, you would have presented it by now.  You don't.  There isn't any.  And this Talk page is not the place for your soapbox rants.  You've missed completely the fact that for the first three centuries of Christianity those in the position to control information were the pagan Romans.  The early Christian community had no way of controlling the documents to which you refer.  The pagan Romans were in the best position to salvage ancient texts, and had a vested interest in what survived.  And we actually know that they took steps to destroy Christian material, with Diocletian famously attempting to destroy all Christian Scriptures (which is the major reason why so few early New Testament manuscripts survive today).  There are many reasons why the works of alleged heretics didn't survive, just as there are many reasons why the majority of Greek scientific works didn't even make it to the Roman era.  The primary reason why the works of alleged heretics tended not to survive was that the groups died out and no one else was interested in preserving their works.  The terrific irony is that we only know of many of these heretical groups because those Christian groups which survived preserved their writings in the form of rebuttals, and thus ensured that the beliefs of these obscure heretical groups were kept on record for century after century, to this day.  If they had really been interested in obliterating the beliefs of these groups, they wouldn't have written them out in detail and preserved them century after century.  And if they had been in a position to destroy the writings of these groups, there wouldn't have been any reason to write rebuttals.  So we're left with you making a claim with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, just like your spurious claim regarding the Library of Alexandria.  I'm not the one making an argument from silence by the way.  I'm not saying that the fact that there's no evidence proves that your case is wrong (Occam's Razor can be used to prove that your case is wrong), I'm saying that the fact that there's no evidence means you cannot assert that it is right.  When you have such evidence, you can take it to a discussion forum and have your rant there.  This is not the place for such soapboxing.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan, it is not soapboxing to point out a variant of the old tenant 'winners write history' is in play her.  I have already cites out Gibbons and Sagan while neither you or Akhilleus have produced any actual names to support your claims.  All we have gotten from you is Wikipedia and Bebe both of which are useless and even less from Akhilleus.   Mostafa El-Abbadi and Omnia Fathallah in "What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?" shows a complex pattern of civil unrest, active destruction, and neglect over centuries while totally shooting the medieval story the Christians dreamed up to place the destruction of the Library on the shoulders of the Arabs. Furthermore none of this addresses the death of Hypatia and total decline of in 415 as documented by Thomas Little Heath, Thomas Lewis (1721) in "The History Of Hypatia", Elbert Hubbard in "Little Journeys to the Homes of the Great, Vol. X, Great Teachers" (who stated "The followers of Hypatia were necessarily few in numbers. They were thinkers - and to think is a task. To believe is easy. The Bishop promised his followers a paradise of ease and rest. He also threatened disbelievers with the pains of hell. A promise on this side - a threat on that!"), Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian in "The Martyrdom of Hypatia (or The Death of the Classical World)", and even the Encyclopaedia Britannica ("Whatever the precise motivation for the murder, the departure soon afterward of many scholars marked the beginning of the decline of Alexandria as a major centre of ancient learning.").  My position is based on working going back nearly three centuries which you have only self-published stuff.  As for the Diocletian decrees these were during the period when the Roman Empire was fragmented and so were not uniform enforced across the Empire.  Flavius Valerius Constantius for example basically ignored these edicts and for the most part left Christians under his rule alone.  If his name looks familiar it should; his son was Constantine.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grubb, let me explain to you what WP:SOAP means.  It means (among other things), that this Talk page is not the appropriate place for you to air your personal prejudices, nor to debate the issue in the main article.  The content may be debated, not the issue.  You have consistently engaged other editors in arguments over the truth claims of the theory in the main article.  That is a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.  You should know this.  You have been told this more than once.  In light of the breathtaking ignorance of your recent comments, you should not even be contributing this article.  I will explain this in detail on your Talk page.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan, claiming WP:SOAP does not make it true especially as I have not seen one reputable refutation of Sagan, Gibbon, Mostafa El-Abbadi, Omnia Fathallah, Thomas Little Heath, Thomas Lewis, or Elbert Hubbard nor a challenge to the quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Also you claimed on my talk page "You didn't even cite him directly, you simply cited Sagan citing Gibbon."  Uh, Taiwan, you did read the part in Cosmos where Sagan make reference to Hypatia's death (c415 CE)?  Considering that Gibbion has the Library being destroyed in 391 how can Sagan be quoting Gibbon if he is giving us a 415 CE date?! The logical holes in this shows it is YOU who is WP:SOAP as obviously Sagan cannot be getting his 415 date from Gibbon!  The Bibliotheca Alexandrina itself give the 391 as the date for the demise of the Library as a public institution with Hypatia "becoming the first martyr to science".  While parts of the Library were destroyed before the Christianscame to power  (c47 BCE and 272 CE) its final destruction rightly or wrongly seems to have been put on the Christian's front doorstep including the modern revival of the institution itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  docetism 

message: I'm assuming Kenneth Humphreys is a notable source (though I can't find reference to any of his works in my collection of scholarly works on the debate concerning the historicity of Jesus, not even by the atheists), but I'm concerned that this reference to his work was published by a less than reputable source, and may even constitute vanity publishing:
:'Kenneth Humphreys. Jesus Never Existed. Historical Review Press (December 2005). .'
The 'Historical Review Press' is well known (and self-advertised), as a publishing house for revisionist material on every subject from the origins of World War I to the historicity of the Holocaust.  Just as quotes from Christian apologists published by Christian publishers should be viewed with skepticism when offered in the context of what should be neutral support for the historicity of Jesus, I would have preferred to see a reference to Humphrey's work from a respected peer-reviewed journal or scholarly source rather than a source which was published by such a blatantly interested and propagandist part (the 'Historical Review Press').  Could someone who knows more about Humphreys than I do provide something like a quote from an article of his in the peer-reviewed scholarly journals in which he regularly publishes?  Failing that, has he written any encyclopedia entries, or contributed to any notable anthologies on the subject?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the website for the Historical Review Press? I don't think we should be using this journal as a source; one of its core positions is a denial of the Holocaust, which isn't exactly part of the academic mainstream. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's the site for the 'Historical Review Press'.  Call me 'Mr Conservative', but the fact that I can only find Humphrey's work published by this particular firm does not inspire confidence that Humphreys and his work are known and recognized in notable and reliable scholarly publications.  Could someone explain what Humphreys is doing here, and list his professional qualifications in this field?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never read him or heard of him and the source sounds poor so I would agree that he should not be used as a ref.  Sophia 06:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if there's a little more feedback from some of the other editors, maybe we can take some action, like replacing him with another source.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Humphreys did debate Professor Gary Hambermas at Edinburgh University in the debated called "Resurrection - Religious Fiction or Historical Fact?" in 2008 which was funded by the Edinburgh University Christian Union and Edinburgh University Philosophy Society.  If Humphreys was some obscure nut with no credentials what-so-ever what was Edinburgh University doing having him speak on this topic when there are "better qualified" people like Robert M. Price, Alvar Ellegard, Frank R. Zindler, and Thomas "Tom" Harpur could have been chosen?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't actually answer my questions.  Could someone explain what Humphreys is doing here, and list his professional qualifications in this field? Could someone who knows more about Humphreys than I do provide something like a quote from an article of his in the peer-reviewed scholarly journals in which he regularly publishes?  Failing that, has he written any encyclopedia entries, or contributed to any notable anthologies on the subject?  Can someone provide any evidence that he is a recognized notable source in this particular field?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does answer the question because Edinburgh University obviously thought Humphreys had good professional qualifications or was well known otherwise they wouldn't have invited him for the debate in the first place.  Also looking for Kenneth Humphreys tends to result in the totally unrelated Kenneth K. Humphreys.  I have found out that supposedly the Jesus, the son of Damneus idea goes back as least to the 1930's and an trying to find out who first used it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't answer my questions, because you haven't listed his professional qualifications in this field, you haven't quoted an article of his in the peer-reviewed scholarly journals in which he regularly publishes, you haven't provided any encyclopedia entries or anthology contributions, and you haven't provided any evidence that he is a recognized notable source in this particular field.  You've told me that he had a debate with Habermas on a completely different subject at Edinburgh University.  That does not answer my questions.  When I look at Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, I don't see any mention of Edinburgh University.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I got a surprise.  Richard M. Mitchell in his 1893 book The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ makes mention of the Jesus, the son of Damneus idea so this is not not a new idea Humphreys came up with but a very old idea going back over a century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Mitchell is notable, then by all means include him.  Thus far I haven't seen any evidence that Humphreys, and the work in question (the one cited in the article), was certainly not published by a reputable source.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kenneth Humphreys

message: The current version of the article uses hypothesis and theory interchangeably. However, these scientific terms have very different meanings. Theory is listed as a word to avoid when used in place of hypothesis. We should substitute theory with a better term, except perhaps in cases when it is used (typically derogatively) by the cited source. Terjen (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your position on the theory of relativity? PiCo (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That it is not a hypothesis but a scientific theory. We shouldn't elevate the Jesus myth to a scientific theory on par with the Theory of relativity. Terjen (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, but this sort of thing isn't science - it's pedantic to insist on words like "theory" having the same meaning here that they do in the sciences. PiCo (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It is wholly inappropriate to mechanically change "theory" to "hypothesis" based on a misapplication to historical studies of the use of the two terms in science. In the humanities the term theory (as in critical theory) is typically used to refer to a systematic network of ideas, or to a worked out set of arguments about an historical phenomenon. In this respect the term theory better describes the more worked out models than does "hypothesis". Paul B (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Theory better describes the more worked out models, as in Jesus theory for the ideas presented in the Historicity of Jesus. Terjen (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, Malcolm, what does your comment have to do with the previous discussion?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 12:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above is considering the truth of the Jesus myth hypothesis, which is not the job of Wikipedia editors. And the article itself is filled with sources debunking the subject of the article, when all that is really needed is a statement in the introduction that it represents a minority view, with a link to whatever Wikipedia article gives the historic documentation that proves Jesus really existed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion above is a about the relative merits of the terms "hypothesis" and "theory". It is not "considering the truth of the Jesus myth hypothesis". Did you read beyond the title? Paul B (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a theory