Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 2

message: As stated previously I think we need some outside perspectives so I've listed and RfC. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 18:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get this darn page unprotected. It's been stuck for a fortnight with serious historical inaccuracies and absurd arguments. Paul B 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The RfC won't lock the page - in fact having it locked is makes the RfC pretty pointless as noone can add new stuff - maybe we just have to ask an nice admin to unlock - can it be one we know or must they be uninvolved? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be someone uninvolved. An involved admin should only do semi-protection and unprotection, as they are for cases of vandalism rather than content dispute. You can make a request at WP:RFPP. AnnH ♫ 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ann - I've logged a request. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 16:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't see this post sorry. Yes that's the RfC - unlike a user RfC which is pretty convolved an article RfC just seems to be a flag to draw outside parties in to add their knowledge/thoughts. If we go to mediation then that also is pretty drawn out but I don't think we're at that stage (yet!). Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 08:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The RfC reads, There are disputes on how minority issues dealing with the non existence of Jesus as a real historical figure should be represented and the levels of competence required to be classed a scholar.
Regarding the minority position of the Jesus-Myth among scholars, I found its minority status acknowledged at http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html, along with an elaborate hypothesis for why it's still a minority. "For more than 200 years a minority of courageous scholars have dared to question the story of Jesus. Despite the risks of physical assault, professional ruin and social opprobrium, they have seriously doubted the veracity of the gospel saga, have peeled away the layers of fraud and deceit and eventually have challenged the very existence of the godman." The list that follows includes a number of pamphleteers, poets, and former priests and monks among its scholars. (Surely if being a former priest or monk qualifies one as a scholar, being a current priest or monk would similarly qualify one?) But my real point is that even a vocal proponent of the idea admits that it is not broadly accepted in academia, though it believes this to be because of "the risks of physical assault, professional ruin and social opprobrium."  Wesley 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minority status 

message: From the opening paragraph:
:The theory, based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not currently found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians, though in more recent times, few scholars have supported it, such as Hyam Maccoby and John Shelby Spong.
While both Maccoby and Spong certainly have non-traditional opinions regarding Jesus which place them at odds with most scholars, has either one actually supported the "Jesus myth" hypothesis?  If they have, can we have a citation?  KHM03 (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Maccoby, but Spong certainly believes that Jesus was a real historical individual. Like many liberal theologians he dismisses the Virgin Birth, Ressurrection and other miracles - or rather he reinterprets them as mythic, midrashic, symbolic etc. In this sense he is a Christ-myther in Drews's original meaning of the term - that is he believes that the "magic" aspects of the gospels are symbolic stories with a spritual meaning, rather than literal events, and should be accepted as such without invalidating them. But he does not believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Paul B 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: KHM03 waited 22 minutes between making the request and making the removal.  This is too hasty.  Give people a couple of days to do their research, instead of just deleting their text.  Therefore, I am reverting your removal. Alienus 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 14:02 (UTC) to 18:31 (UTC) comes to four hours and 29 minutes by my calculation. There was also a response before he removed it, agreeing with him about Spong. And now there has been another response that seems to agree with him about Maccoby? But it would still be contrary to WP:AGF to take down temporarily a non-essential part of a sentence which two editors question, which two editors think (based on their knoweledge) to be inaccurate, and which nobody has supported? AnnH ♫ 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hastiness aside, Str1977's description sounds more like the Apocalyptic Prophet model a la Albert Schweitzer than the Jesus-Myth model. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote give Alienus some time, or whoever "people" is, to find a citation, and tag with  in the meantime. At least then it's clear that the sentence seems to have no factual support behind it, rather than simply removing it so people don't realize there are content disputes. Homestarmy 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If in fact there is no evidence, then the sentence will be cut in a day or two.  However, by leaving it there for a little longer, with the  tag, we give people a chance to dig up that evidence.  That's the reason we shouldn't remove it immediatelty.  Thank you for understanding. Alienus 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's citation policy says that any portion that is uncited may be removed at any time. Not that it has to be removed, but it may. Of course if everything not directly cited were removed from wikipedia, it would be much much smaller. But there is no mandatory waiting period. Many times a day or two waiting period may be a good idea, but there's also nothing wrong with editing boldly when something looks particularly questionable, as in this case. Wesley 16:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maccoby & Spong 

message: I removed this from the article, from the beginning of a paragraph:
: The belief that Jesus was not real was so wide spread among early Christians that Polycarp (c 69-155 A.D.), Bishop of Smyrna, lamented that it was the belief of  "the great majority" of Christians. As a result, counter arguments sprung up. For example, ...
This appears to be at best a twisting of what Polycarp actually said, and at worst a fabrication. The closest quote I found from Polycarp's letter to the Philippians reads, "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; " and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; "watching unto prayer," and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into temptation ," as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."
In context, Polycarp includes in the "vanity of many" together the beliefs that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, those who do not confess the "testimony of the cross," and those who deny the resurrection and coming judgment. Depending on the interpretation, the first item could include those who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah in the flesh; the next two categories could include people who thought Jesus was just this guy, but didn't value his death on the cross or who didn't believe he rose from the dead. Even taking them together, those who believe these things are hardly called a "majority of Christians." 
Earlier Polycarp writes, "Wherefore, girding up your loins," "serve the Lord in fear" and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and "believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory," and a throne at His right hand. I hope it's clear that the "multitude" isn't necessarily a multitude of Christians, and that what is at issue here is Jesus' resurrection and glory, not his existence. 
I trust this justifies removing what I did. Wesley 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how should the rest of the statements in the "Background" section be handled?  Wesley 06:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polycarp quotes 

message: I thought this [link removed] might be of interest to some of you on this page: Just Thought Id Mention It 11:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (external link edited, as it made this page uneditable) -- Eugene van der Pijll 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am aware of the double blue page, although I wasn't aware of this discussion forum. Thank you for mentioning it. For the record, User:KHM03 retired from Wikipedia because the personal information revealed about him led to harrassment of his family and colleagues. After the incident was reported, the site removed the personal information, but the harm was already done. This is  a matter not of censorship, but of privacy and security. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Not anymore. They did when the incident was reported. KHM03 did not include a photo or his name on his user page, but doubleblue did until the incident was reported. I don't think it's protesting too much to object to cyberstalking. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Criticism Allowed

message: is, in fact, not as old as Christianity itself.  Docetists did not believe that Jesus was not a historical figure.  They believed that Jesus was not human, that his body was an illusion.  But it was an illusion seen by specific actual people in an actual time and place - 1st century Judea.  It is highly misleading to pretend that docetism was an early version of the Jesus myth. john k 04:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is what the proponents of the Jesus-Myth do which is why it should be mentioned here. This article is not titled Why the Jesus-Myth is wrong or wasn't when I last looked. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite sources. It's worked so well in other places. Please, let's not get into another dispute over who is and is not a scholar ;) Proponents should definitely be mentioned here, but see above: "a section at the bottom is needed to talk about general criticisms and issues with the arguement (sic)" --Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never had a problem with calling them authors/minority/etc but the way John K writes above he's arguing with what they are saying not reporting what they say and then putting it in context. A counter response is of course called for to balance the article but I'm just highlighting how it should be done. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 12:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So, cite Freke and Gandy. I know SOPHIA has a copy of their book. Is there anything else that is "totally disputed"? (Man, I hate to see that tag on any article). Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The heart of the debate... 

message: I decided to get things started by addressing the introduction. I think AJA's version is in general a more accurate description of the theory, but I also think it's worth mentioning up front that it's based on a paucity of historical sources (or at least the belief that there aren't any). So, is the new intro ok with everyone? (I'm also hoping to illustrate making a small change to one paragraph and listing specific reasons. Suggestions for doing this better are welcome. :-) Wesley 16:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "amalgamation" in the intro is a bit clumsy as what is proposed by some is a 1st century Jewish based reworking of the dying resurrecting god made man myth. So they don't lump everything together - just reinterpret the old myth in what was then a modern context. I can't change it at the moment myself as if I understand 3RR the way it's currently being interpreted I'll be in violation. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like some pretty fine hairsplitting, but I don't think I have any real objection. It's a new day, so go ahead and make it better. I would myself, but I'm not quite sure what you're aiming for. Wesley 21:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of changes 

message: The topic seems to have changed to the actual content.
Now that we're actually discussing (as opposed to talking about discussing):
* The parts which have been moved to the talk page should not be moved back, sources or no, and some parts now in the article should be removed, because there's already an article on the Historicity of Jesus. Content about the general question belongs there (if it can be sourced, etc.). Maybe it should all be moved to Talk:Historicity of Jesus.
* My version of the Background/History is preferable.
*# If mainstream scholars believe the debate about "Christ come in the flesh" refers to Docetism, why do we need several quotes devoted to backing up a fringe theory? The citation from 1 John is sufficient to explain what they're talking about. And why an argument in favor of it from un-named proponents? And to examine the argument itself: since it cites John the Baptist, it would have to be shown that he was mentioned by any source which fails to mentions Jesus. I doubt any such source exists -- even the Mandaens believe Jesus was a historical figure.
*# Mine is more concise.
*# Mine removes the Mythicist puffery. E.g., even calling it "scholarship" is POV because quite a few people would dispute that, it calls Doherty "the noted humanist" (noted by whom? for what?) and "a scholar of Ancient History and Classical Languages" (who says he's a scholar as distinct from a pseudo-scholarly crackpot? where are his peer-reviewed publications? is he cited by recognized scholars?) and says he "infused the Jesus Myth theory with fresh vigour" (says who?).
*# One addition my version needs: a little more on Frazier.
* "Parallels with Mediterranian mystery religions" is badly in need of a rewrite. Tons of unsourced claims, POV language, and plain inaccuracies (e.g., the egregious "...in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John..."). If you're not willing to just burn it down and start over, can we at least hide it here in Talk until it's presentable?
A.J.A. 03:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read any of these books? I'm happy to edit this article and bring it up to scratch but I am not willing to make up for your lack of knowledge of the subject by having to educate you every step of the way. The Historicity of Jesus is about the documents that write about Jesus (or don't when they should in some cases). The Jesus-Myth is aparticular theory that in some cases does not rely on a nonexistant Jesus as some theories accept a living ordinary man who's life was later embelished to form a mythical god type story. Be honest A.J.A. and John K and save me a lot of time - are you both just interested in trashing the theory and cutting this article down to a stub-like rebuttal. If so say now and I'll bow out as I seem to be a lone voice here (ie the only person who has read these books) so I don't stand a chance and I haven't got the time to be research everything only for it to die a death by reverts. Go for the kill quick and clean now and save us all the effort. Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember giving The Jesus Puzzle a quick read. I think the way you describe dividing the material between Historicity of Jesus and Jesus-Myth sounds reasonable. As I understand it, most stuff about the actual documents, like the Josephus quotes etc., would be discussed at the Historicity article, while the use of those documents (or lack of documents like you said) to support a Jesus-myth idea would go here. That sounds eminently reasonable, but it may mean some shuffling back and forth between the two to make it work. I wonder if the intro's to both could be clarified to make it clearer what they encompass? Wesley 12:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, Sophia.  I have no idea whether this article accurately summarizes the ideas of writers on the Jesus-myth idea, because, as you have determined, I haven't read any of those books.  The problem with the article is that it presents what it's saying as though it is true, rather than presenting it as though it is the work of specific people who've written on the subject.  We need all these claims to be cited as claims made by specific people, and not claimed as truth by the narrative voice, as they are at present.  And it is not enough to simply present the ideas of Jesus myth people.  We should try to give some understanding of the ways in which their analysis differs from the mainstream analysis, and shouldn't pretend that all opponents of the Jesus myth theory are Biblical inerrantists, which really is a straw man.  I have no idea why I am being accused of being eager to revert here - I have not reverted at all in this business.  Wesley is the one who re-removed large quantities of text (some of which, I will note, I attempted to NPOV).  In terms of the distinction between Historicity of Jesus and this article, I think we need to document the ways in which the term "Jesus myth" is used, and see whether it is simply used as a synonym for the idea that Jesus was not a historical personage (in which case this article ought to be merged with Historicity of Jesus), or whether it is used to mean the idea that Jesus is based on pagan myths, whether or not there was a historical Jesus, in which case we need to do as Wesley suggests. john k 17:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to be clear, I didn't remove that chunk of text because of POV problems, but because it lacked any citations. I was attempting to follow the example Sophia set when she remove the 'Arguments Against the Jesus-Myth' section, not because it lacked citations, but because some of the citations it had were poor. At this point I just want the standard for citations in this article to be applied consistently. Wesley 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good to see things moving 

message: I removed the following section because it contains no citations whatsoever, not even to bede.org, infidels.org or published books.
Wesley 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed by Wesley

message: One of the principal arguments made against the historicity of Jesus focuses on the fact that no mention of him or the events of the New Testament can be found in most of the contemporary and near-contemporary records of the day.
====Philo (20 BCE - 40 CE)====
Philo was a Hellenized Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. He visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and corresponded with family there. He wrote a great many books on religion and philosophy which survive to this day, and mentioned many of his contemporaries. His main theological contribution was the development of the Logos, the "Word" that opens the Gospel of John. Yet Philo not once mentions Jesus, anybody who could be mistaken for Jesus, or any of the events of the New Testament. His last writings come from 40 CE, only a few years after the end of Pontius Pilate's reign, when he was part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian Jews to the Roman Emperor Caligula.
====Plutarch (ca. 46 - 127) ====
Plutarch wrote, about the same time as Josephus, about contemporary Roman figures, oracles, prophesies, and moral, religious, and spiritual issues. He mentions neither Jesus nor Christianity, although it is known that Christians were active in the Roman Empire by the time he wrote.
====Justus====

Justus of Tiberias wrote, at the end of the first century, a history of Jewish kings in Galilee. As the Gospels record Jesus as having significant interactions with the Jewish political and religious leaders, as well as the highest-ranking local Roman officials, one might expect Justus to have made mention of those events. His writing has not survived intact, but none of what does exist makes mention of Jesus. Further, no mention is made--especially by early Christian apologists--of such a reference, even by writers who would have had access to his complete works.
====Josephus (ca. 37 - ca. 100)====	 
Although all extant texts of Josephus do contain mentions of Jesus, many reject them as later interpolations. For those who reject the authenticity of both the Testamonium Flavanium and the xx.9 reference to James, Josephus would belong on this list. Naturally, those who accept the authenticity of one or the other, in whole or in part, see Josephus as providing evidence for an historical Jesus and thus would object to Josephus's inclusion. As the only first-century non-Christian to perhaps write of Jesus, the two brief mentions to be found in Antiquities of the Jews (written ca. 94) are the subject of often-heated debate.
====Others====

There are a number of other sources that survive from the period in which it would not have been unreasonable to find mention of Jesus, though in no particular case would one be surprised to find mention of Jesus lacking. However, Jesus is missing from all of them.
These include: Damis, who wrote of Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher and mystic who was a contemporary with Jesus; Pliny the Elder, who wrote, in 80 CE, a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, and Persius, Roman satirists; Pausanias, whose massive Guide to Greece includes mentions of thousands of names, including minor Jewish figures in Palestine; historians Epictetus and Aelius Aristides, who both recorded events and people in Palestine; and Fronto who, in the second century, scandalized rites about Roman Christians without ever mentioning Jesus.
Other writers and historians of the time who did not mention Jesus include Dio Chrysostom, Aulus Gellius, Lucius Apuleius, Marcus Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Hierocles of Alexandria, Cassius Maximus Tyrius, Arrian, Appian, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Lucius Annaeus Florus, and Marcus Annaeus Lucanus. 
Comment: I have found no mention of the 24+ gospels (e.g. The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, etc.) that are currently in existence. The New Testament contains only 4 of these 24+ gospels. John Charles Webb 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable omissions in extant contemporary records

message: 
There are a number of other sources that survive from the period in which it would not have been unreasonable to find mention of Jesus, though in no particular case would one be surprised to find mention of Jesus lacking. However, Jesus is missing from all of them.
These include: Damis, who wrote of Apollonius of Tyana, a philosopher and mystic who was a contemporary with Jesus; Pliny the Elder, who wrote, in 80 CE, a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; Juvenal, Martial, Petronius, and Persius, Roman satirists; Pausanias, whose massive Guide to Greece includes mentions of thousands of names, including minor Jewish figures in Palestine; historians Epictetus and Aelius Aristides, who both recorded events and people in Palestine; and Fronto who, in the second century, scandalized rites about Roman Christians without ever mentioning Jesus.
Other writers and historians of the time who did not mention Jesus include Dio Chrysostom, Aulus Gellius, Lucius Apuleius, Marcus Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Hierocles of Alexandria, Cassius Maximus Tyrius, Arrian, Appian, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Lucius Annaeus Florus, and Marcus Annaeus Lucanus. 
Comment: I have found no mention of the 24+ gospels (e.g. The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas, etc.) that are currently in existence. The New Testament contains only 4 of these 24+ gospels. John Charles Webb 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: In addition to the numerous contradictions in the Bible's own account of Jesus's life, those who reject the historicity of Jesus consider the numerous spectacular events recorded only in the Bible and nowhere else as irreparably condemning the Bible's reliability as a historical account.
Those who hold to the historicity of Jesus generally, though not universally, acknowledge that the Bible is not to be considered the literal truth, and that it contains many obviously-mythical elements; rather, they consider what follows to be later additions to the core truth of the historical Jesus, in much the same way that a caught fish gets bigger each time in the re-telling. Those who hold that Jesus is a myth see no evidence that any fish was ever caught in the first place.
====Star of Bethlehem====
Although many explanations have been offered for the Star of Bethlehem, no actual record of any such astronomical phenomenon can be found.
Comment -  There is a contemporary discovery of a celestial event that fits all of the elements of Matthew's biblical description of 'The Star'.  It does not describe an 'astronomical' event but, rather, an astrological configuration (asterism) that occurs only once in over 40,000,000 years.  The astrological solution answers why there was no astronomical/clearly visible phenomenon because the 'star' was visible only in an ancient star chart. The work [] is part of a body of work that earned its author 5 successive nominations for a Templeton Prize in religion and the star chart is easily reproducable with the appropriate software. It appears from the referenced work that the biblical description of The Star of Bethlehem is an astrological allegory written in 'code' (e.g. - 'house' as an element of an ancient astrological chart) that would have meaning to the ancient "wise men" called astrologers. Also, any celestial event that is given an 'interpretation' (a birth, etc.) is within the realm of astrology. Astronomy is the 'science of observation' of celestial bodies. Additionally, there is a Chinese record of a supernova that falls within the biblical timeline (approx. 5 BC). The referenced work also raises the strong possibility that many elements of the birth of Christ, as recorded by the gospels of Matthew and Luke contain significant elements of astrological/astronomical allegory which have, subsequently, been given literal interpretations. References used with author's permission. John Charles Webb 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Events only recorded in the Bible

message: Although many explanations have been offered for the Star of Bethlehem, no actual record of any such astronomical phenomenon can be found.
Comment -  There is a contemporary discovery of a celestial event that fits all of the elements of Matthew's biblical description of 'The Star'.  It does not describe an 'astronomical' event but, rather, an astrological configuration (asterism) that occurs only once in over 40,000,000 years.  The astrological solution answers why there was no astronomical/clearly visible phenomenon because the 'star' was visible only in an ancient star chart. The work [] is part of a body of work that earned its author 5 successive nominations for a Templeton Prize in religion and the star chart is easily reproducable with the appropriate software. It appears from the referenced work that the biblical description of The Star of Bethlehem is an astrological allegory written in 'code' (e.g. - 'house' as an element of an ancient astrological chart) that would have meaning to the ancient "wise men" called astrologers. Also, any celestial event that is given an 'interpretation' (a birth, etc.) is within the realm of astrology. Astronomy is the 'science of observation' of celestial bodies. Additionally, there is a Chinese record of a supernova that falls within the biblical timeline (approx. 5 BC). The referenced work also raises the strong possibility that many elements of the birth of Christ, as recorded by the gospels of Matthew and Luke contain significant elements of astrological/astronomical allegory which have, subsequently, been given literal interpretations. References used with author's permission. John Charles Webb 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Star of Bethlehem

message: According to Acts 1:9, Jesus Ascended to Heaven from atop Mount Olivet, which would have been in full view of all of Jerusalem. Once more, no account of the Ascension can be found outside of the Bible.
</div>
----
(end of part I removed -- Wesley 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ascension

message: I just found this one: Bible conspiracy theory. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my username: "Last one in's a freemason!" Homestarmy 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering what "Homestarmy" means, but you'll have to explain the link to freemasonry. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy comes from [The Homestarrunner website], and the freemasons are mentioned in the bible conspiracy article. The line I used comes from Strong Bads 150th e-mail. Homestarmy 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related article. 

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