Misplaced Pages

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 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think this material should be discussed in the intro at all, and I've removed it. It's cited to Freke and Gandy in the main body of the article, which is fine. john k 16:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Removed Material

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. A.J.A. 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Such huge multi section changes should not happen without ANY discussion at all on the talk pages. With controversial subjects such as this may I suggest you actually propose on the talk page what you wish to so before making sweeping changes. You probably have some valuable points to make but you need to outline specific issues here. Sophia 20:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sophia. When you say WP is not a soapbox, did you mean to suggest that the removed material was original research, or that it lacked sufficient references, or... ? Wesley 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sophia and Wesley - A.J.A., you're going to need to explain your perspective here and tell why you think all that material should be removed. I happen to agree that some of it (the material about all the authors who don't mention Jesus, in particular) should probably go, but it needs to be hashed out and discussed, not just deleted unilaterally. john k 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the material is polemical rather than encyclopedic and largely consists of generic arguments against Christianity. Looking through the article history, at one point there was a section with arguments in favor of the theory and one with arguments against. Someone took out the arguments against, and then people over time just kept adding objections to Christianity (many of which are unrelated to the specific objection this article covers), to absurd length. A.J.A. 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the article is not about "arguments against Christianity" - it is about arguments against the historical existence of Jesus. I am not a Christian (I'm agnostic and was raised vaguely Jewish) but I believe the arguments which have been made against the historical existence of Jesus are entirely specious. I agree that the article as it is now is problematic, but it would be better to specify objections than to remove wholesale. john k 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Obviously, arguments against the historical existence of Jesus are arguments against Christianity.
2. No, the article is not about arguments against the historical existence of Jesus, it's about one particular such argument, that Jesus was an adaptation of pagan mythical figures. All the other arguments have no bearing, except to extent the article makes the implicit claim that the Christian account is false and therefore that the mythicist one must be right, which is both very biased and a logical fallacy. A.J.A. 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily true to say that this is only one particular such argument - pretty much every argument that's ever been made that Jesus didn't exist as a historical personage tends to include the argument that Jesus was an adaptation of pagan myths. Furthermore, the idea that Jesus never existed has been broadly termed "the Jesus Myth" - that is, it is used more broadly than just to mean the idea that Jesus was based on pagan myths. I would add that arguments against the historical existence of Jesus are made largely as attacks against Christianity, but they are much more than just attacks on Christianity. john k 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the changes in detail, but I think it's only to be expected that such large changes in a controversial article would be reverted. I'd point out that it's not appropriate to call the changes "vandalism", as TrumpetPower! did in his edit summary. WP:Vandalism says: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. A.J.A., if you discuss your proposed changes here, you'll probably find some editors will agree with you. AnnH ♫ 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A has reverted again so I've requested page protection until we get this sorted. Sophia 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, let's discuss it already

I discussed it. It was reverted for not being discussed. Now the most recent reversion gives the reason that I need consensus. That's it -- he won't consent because I don't have consensus. So what, if anything, do you want?

If there a substantive objection? Or will you just keep reverting on the grounds of a social faux pas? A.J.A. 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to state what you want changed and why or ask others to reference or explain certain specific parts. Sophia 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. A.J.A. 00:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Explain the reason for your changes, point by point. If possible, convince other editors. Also, it's always best to cite sources. Arch O. La 01:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't make sense. A.J.A. 02:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

When editing controversial articles, it's always best to discuss changes to avoid edit wars with people who may not agree with you. If you want your edits to stick (and not be reverted), you have to convince other people that you are correct. To convince others, you have to answer three questions:

1. What do you want to change?
2. Why do you want to change it?
3. Why should other editors agree with you?

The other guidelines to consider involve Citing reliable sources. Misplaced Pages relies on Verifiability, not truth. Arch O. La 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So I change it. Then it gets reverted because I haven't "discussed" it. So I come here and discuss it. In reply, I'm told to discuss it. So I discuss it some more. In reply, I'm again told to discuss it. So I ask if there's any discussion anyone is willing to have other than telling me to discuss it. The reply is another request to discuss it. I object that this makes no sense. I get a rephrased instruction to discuss it. I reply that it still doesn't make sense. And what do you give me? A longer instructrion to discuss it.

You know what? Screw discussion. As soon as I can, I'm reverting back to my version. And if you don't like it, you discuss why.

The ball's in your court. A.J.A. 02:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What discussion? Arch O. La 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus-Myth#The_Removed_Material

Does anyone say it's not absurdly long, not biased, and not off topic?

(Why yes, telling me to discuss the changes before making them is a perfectly reasonble answer to the above question.) A.J.A. 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what everybody is telling you (and many of us are not terribly sympathetic to the article in its present form) is that you need to provide more specifics about what you think needs to be changed and why, and you can't just go and delete half the article with no discussion. john k 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, this should become this, because it's bloated and irrelevant. Maybe later some other stuff should be done, but my version right now is already an improvement. A.J.A. 05:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As the editor who wants changes you have to be the one to explain why when your edits are contested as in this case (and by quite a few editors). We have al indicated that we can see the article needs work so no one has refused to make any changes but you are trying to make so many at once and change the whole nature of the article that you need to take it bit by bit. Maybe tackle a section at a time.

Note to other editors Could you support my request for page ptotection if you agree it's necessary as I'm concerned at the attitude shown above. We will be force to discuss changes here and it will save a potential edit war/3rr violation mess. Sophia 08:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I was too late. Your request has already been refused. Arch O. La 14:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the actual content? A.J.A. 14:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you? All you've said so far is that you disagree with a large chunk of it and find it illogical, biased and off-point (but you refuse to give details, and we've asked). That's not far from original research. It's also not far from POV pushing to place your own point of view above those of the cited authors. Also, large-scale unilateral deletions are not far from vandalism. All we've done so far is discuss the need for discussion. AJA, you're the one who wants to make large-scale changes, so in fact the ball is in your court. The whole point of discussion is to build consensus. So far, you seem to be trying to bypass that process. Arch O. La 14:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"All we've done so far is discuss the need for discussion."

Exactly. What you haven't done, and give no appearance of ever doing, is actually engage in some discussion.

I give reasons for changing the content. You respond with yet more about the need for discussion. So discuss, hypocrit!

You say you don't like the article as it stands -- but actually doing something about it is "not far" from all kinds of bad things. So it just has to stay the same. A.J.A. 15:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"I give reasons for changing the content." Details, please (and not personal POV). Arch O. La 15:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Define "personal POV". A.J.A. 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

AJA, what people are asking you to do is to go through your changes, point by point, and explain your reasons for them. Not merely saying "my version is better", but in what regard and how. Str1977 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of changes

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)

I also reinserted the section of arguments against the Jesus Myth. To find it, I sampled different versions of the article's history until I found where it had been removed on March 12 by an anonymous IP, with an edit history comment that something like "For and against sections don't make good articles." There is some truth in the comment, and it looks like at least some of what I just restored had already been integrated into the rest of the article, so there's probably some duplication now that needs cleaning up. However, I think the section's removal probably lost some content, and for this article I think at least having that section to collect some of the counter arguments might make sense. It does a better job of explaining why more scholars haven't bought into the theory. And now I'm going to stop for a while and give others a chance to comment. Wesley 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Removed from page

Arguments against the Jesus Myth

• Josephus provides reliable evidence about the historical Jesus. Although most opponents of the Jesus-Myth agree that Christian scribes corrupted the manuscripts containing the Testimonium Flavianum, they point out that many modern scholars believe that the core of the Testimonium is authentic and constitutes a reliable first-century non-Christian reference to the historical Jesus.. The second reference to Jesus, which says that "Jesus called Christ" was the brother of James the Just, in Josephus' Antiquities, is considered authentic by many scholars. The silence of other contemporary non-Christian sources is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews.

• Pauline evidence of a historical Jesus. Opponents of the Jesus-Myth claim that the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul’s correspondence are sufficient explanations for the lack detail about the historical Jesus. Unlike the gospels, Paul’s letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus. Moreover, despite their occasional nature, Paul's letters contain a number of references conventionally seen as references to the historical Jesus (See, e.g., Gal. 1:19, 3:16, 4:4, Rom. 1:3, 3:1, 15:8, and 1 Cor. 11:23-25, 15:4). Although mythicists argue that these references are not in fact references to a historical Jesus, their arguments are dismissed by opponents as based on forced and erroneous translations.

• The Gospels are ancient biographies and impart at least some historical information about Jesus. Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus-Myth argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. (See What Are the Gospels? A Comparison With Graeco-roman Biography, by Richard A. Burridge). Although scholars do not agree on the exact nature of this genre, associated works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies, proponents of Jesus' existence believe they contain sufficient historical information to establish his historicity.

• Not-so-parallel pagan myths. The suggestion of parallels with pagan myths has gained little traction in the academic community. The Jesus Mysteries has been criticized for heavy reliance on out-dated secondary sources and for confusing the issue of causation (who was borrowing from whom). Others have questioned the similarity between the dying-and-rising accounts of pagan saviors and those of Jesus in the Gospels.

• The influence of the Old Testament. The suggestion that similarities to the Hebrew Bible indicates wholesale invention of Jesus and his followers on the part of the Gospel authors has not gained acceptance in the scholarly community. Although there are many types of midrash, none seem to reflect the theory advocated by Jesus-Myth proponents — that the Gospel authors invented new characters and situations wholesale according to their understanding of prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. The closet midrash parallel, the extension or embellishment of stories about characters (such as Moses and Abraham) found in the Hebrew Bible, is considered by some to be inapplicable. Moreover, there are many examples of ancient Jewish and Christian literature that shaped their stories and accounts according to Hebrew Bible influence, but nevertheless provided historical accounts. For example, in 1 Maccabees "Judas and his battles are described in terms which remind us of Saul and David and the battles against the Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel," but 1 Maccabees has nevertheless "won much respect from historians." (John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of Maccabees, pages 15-17).

I removed the above as it could be an important section but currently the only references are from www.bede.org, one amazon book advert and the only credible link to www.earlychristianwritings.com. As it stands this section is backed up pretty solely by Christopher Price of bede.org whoever he is. I know there are better links out there to counter the Jesus-Myth so lets find them. Sophia 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, there are much larger sections remaining in the article that have even fewer citations than these paragraphs you've removed. Are you in favor of applying the standard consistently and also removing those paragraphs until better citations for them can be found? Wesley 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a citation needed for the first paragraph of "Paul's presentation of Jesus" and the "Specific arguments of the theory" opening sentence doesn't make it clear who is claiming what so needs to be more accurate. Other than that there seem to be quite a few links to different authors, articles and terms. The other sections in general seem to be clear as to who says what. I will admit I consider www.bede.org as a poor reference site as it is not much more than an anonymous blog in parts and am concerned for the integrity of the article that the only real refutation of the theory comes from there. I know that is not the only critical site out there and relying solely on one source makes the counter arguments seem weak and narrow.

What I am not in favour of is cat and mouse games with the material by people who have a very clear POV and are trying to railroad changes. I will find some better links myself for the above or integrate it into the current article to avoid the for/against type article that the anon IP complained of. Although I am sympathetic to the Jesus-Myth myself I know it is a contoversial minority subject and have no issue with it being portrayed as such. I objected to it being reverted to not much more than a stub by A.J.A. as it is a well developed idea with an interesting history. Sophia 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more uncited there. Try these sections: Notable omissions in contemporary sources (who thinks they're notable?) "Biblical contradictions" and its subsections (who thinks these are irreconcilable contradictions?). While they might appear to be self-evident, the article now reads as though wikipedia is making these arguments. Wesley 18:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bede site actually notes a bunch of books that deal with arguments against the jesus myth (). I'd suggest we look to those books for arguments against Jesus Myth theories. And Wesley is right that the article is full of unsourced pro-Jesus myth comments. john k 18:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Biblical contradictions" and "events mentioned only in the bible" section seem to me to be particularly problematic. Most scholars accept that there are contradictions between the Gospels, and accept that events like the Massacre of the innocents or the Census probably didn't happen, but also believe that the Gospels provide sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus. It is a straw man to pretend that claims like these are somehow arguments for the Jesus-Myth, when even Christian scholars like Raymond Brown accept most of these critiques. john k 18:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(Edit clash) The sections wesley mention are all subsections of the "Specific arguments of the the theory" I mentioned above. To accurately put forth the tenents of the Jesus-Myth there will always be sentences that read as pro the argument - I don't see how that is to be avoided - or in an NPOV article would want to be avoided. On the whole I would dispute that there is alot of unattributed comments other than those I have already mentioned and most of that is linking which part goes with which theory. Following up the books on bede.org is an excellent idea as the site itself has a very strong POV from (as far as I'm aware) a non notable person so is not a good reference.

John K please don't confuse what seems obvious to you with what these authors are proposing - this article is about theories by people who do question these things even if others regard it as straw man. Sophia 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, the sections "specific arguments on the theory" are, for the most part, not sourced to any author of Jesus-Myth theories, and, furthermore, are expressed in unnecessarily POV ways. "The strongest arguments against the existence of Jesus are" - this kind of expression is clearly POV, because it implies that these arguments are strong arguments against the existence of Jesus, when, in fact, most scholars do not believe they are arguments against the existence of Jesus at all. "A common argument used to make the case againt the existence of Jesus", or something similar but less awkward, would be more NPOV. I'm not sure what you're saying about me confusing "what seems obvious to me" with "what these authors are proposing". And using stuff about contradictions within the Bible as "evidence" for the non-existence of Jesus is not just a straw man, it's a blatantly obvious straw man, since nearly any mainstream scholar is willing to admit that there are contradictions within the Gospel accounts. At the very least, this material needs to be cited before you can start claiming that it represents "theories by people who do question these things", assuming that those people are people other than, say, TrumpetPower! And if it is put in, it has to be put in in a way which clearly indicates that these same discrepancies are noted and accepted by most mainstream scholars who also accept that Jesus was a historical personage. Pretty much all this material is arguably OR. john k 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already agreed that this stuff need to be attributed to particular myth proponents and will start on that as soon as I have a chance (real life does come first!). Pretty much all the arguments below are used in The Jesus Mysteries which I have a copy of but I don't have The Jesus Puzzle which I know is a Jesus- Myth book too so someone else will have to check that one. You may feel they use straw man arguments but they are the arguments the Jesus-Myth school uses whch is why they are quoted. I have, and have never had, any issue with sentences after each section saying what the wider academic view is. There is actually no OR here at all - it is all from Jesus-Myth proponents and a lot of it is correctly attributed but the specific arguments (as I pointed out right from the start of this thread) do need to be sorted into who says what. The fact that mainstream Gospel scholars have argued away the problems with the bible accounts does not mean that others do not/cannot question these problems. The Jesus-Myth proponents feel they have "strong arguments" so these words can be used as long as they are attributed to the correct people and not presented as fact - the article has been through a lot of changes since I last thoroughly read it so I will have to check again for "creeping POV". This is a legitimate article based on an established (although minority) view. It is not a new idea but has recently been popularized by the likes of Freke and Gandy to the extent that in the UK you can buy The Jesus Mysteries in most high street book stores. This does not make it right but it means an article is needed. I have no problem with it being set in context but I will strongly resist turning this article into an aplogetics rebuttal of the Jesus-Myth theory. This article is here to explain the thesis, give the main players and their arguments and to put it into a wider context of mainstream academia showing it's acceptance (or lack of it) and the reasons for that acceptance (or lack of it) - not necessarily in that order. That should meet the NPOV balance required. I will strive to do my homework and make changes as necessary but I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment so it will take me a little time. Sophia 21:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to state what the arguments of the Jesus Myth proponents are. What's not fine is to imply that their arguments are good, or even that they're relevant. I fully agree with you that an article is needed, and that said article needs to explain the idea. But it shouldn't explain the idea in a contextless way, and should make clear the relationship of the idea to mainstream scholarship. john k 22:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

To them their arguments are good and relevent so we can say that they think this - we just have to say that lots of others disagree with them. That's what NPOV is - I repeat - this article is not an OR rebuttal of the Jesus-Myth. Sophia 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it should not be. We ought to look at published books which have attempted to rebut the Jesus myth idea. And the problem is that the article straight out says things like "The strongest argument is such and such." That's just blatantly POV. We ought to say things like "One of the arguments most commonly made by Jesus-myth supporters is such and such." I don't think it's especially necessary to note what they think the strongest arguments are, as that's bound to have a tendency to sound POV. I think it's going to be very apparent that supporters of a theory believe their own arguments to be sound. john k 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Notable omissions in extant contemporary records

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.

Biblical contradictions

The Christian Bible is a collection of the majority of documents supporting the historicity of Jesus, and the only reliable sources for details on his life. Those who advocate the theory that Jesus is a myth consider contradictions in the Bible to impeach the credibility of those documents. Those who oppose the theory generally consider the contradictions to be inconsequential and largely the result of the orally-transmitted roots of the documents. A significant minority of Christians hold to the concept of Biblical Inerrancy and assert that contradictions are apparent only and result from human failings to properly interpret the Bible.

The following is a partial listing of claims by skeptics of contradictions in major biographical details of Jesus's life and death. Those who deny the historicity of Jesus would claim that facts such as these should not be in dispute.

Genealogy

Matthew 1:1-16 traces Jesus's lineage from King David's son Solomon through to Joseph's father, Jacob. Luke 3:23-31 traces a completely different lineage from King David's son Nathan to Joseph's father, Heli. Christian apologists traditionally explain this discrepancy by suggesting that one records a patrilineal genealogy while the other a matrilineal one, but both identify different fathers for Joseph and neither mentions Mary. Further, there is no historical precedent for indicating a matrilineal genealogy for a first-century Jewish man, and especially not to establish that man's royal heritage.

Early childhood

According to Matthew 2:13-16, Mary and Joseph fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt in order to escape Herod's slaughtering of "all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under." The family does not return until the end of Herod's reign. In Luke 2:39-40, the holy family returns directly to Nazareth from Bethlehem, traveling to Jerusalem every year for the Passover feast. No mention of any acts of infanticide is made.

The Disciples

The Disciples of Jesus were twelve men personally selected by Jesus and who served as his traveling companions throughout his ministry. They would have come to know each other as well as any close family member.

Matthew 4:18-20 and Mark 4:18-20 both recount the same story of how Jesus selected his first Apostle, Peter, but the stories of Peter's selection from Luke 5:2-11 and John 1:35-42 are completely different. However, many apologetists might argue that Matthew and Mark's accounts just say where Peter was found, that Luke's account goes indepth, that John's talks about how the news of the Messiah was told to Peter, and who knew in Luke that Jesus claimed to be Lord.]

Matthew 10:2 and Mark 3:16-19 both list the same set of Disciples. Luke 6:13-16 omits Thaddaeus and includes Judas son of James in his place. Acts 1:13,26 agrees with Luke but adds that the remaining Disciples chose Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. John neither provides a list nor indicates their number, though it does mention nine of them by name at various places.

The trial

According to Matthew 26:18-20, 26:57-68, 27:1-2, Mark 14:16-18, 14:53-72, and 15:1, Jesus's initial hearing was at night on the first evening of Passover; in the morning, he was taken to Pontius Pilate. Luke 22:13-15 and 54-66 record the hearing as having taken place in the morning, and in John 18:28 and 19:14 it happened the day before. This is especially significant as the first evening of Passover was and is one of the holiest days of the year for Jews, a day on which conducting business of any kind would be anathema.

In Matthew 26:59-66 and Mark 14:55-64, Jesus is tried by the entire Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court. In Luke 22:66-71, there was no trial, but only an inquiry held by the Sanhedrin. In John 18:13-24, Jesus was never brought before the Sanhedrin at all; Jesus only had private hearings before Annas and Caiphas.

Matthew 27:11-14 reports that Jesus maintained a stoic silence at his hearing before Pilate. According to John 18:33-37, Jesus answered all the charges eloquently and at length.

The chief priests and elders persuade the people to demand the release of Barabbas in Matthew 27:20, whereas in Mark 15:11 only the chief priests are responsible, and in Luke 23:18-23 the people seem to decide for themselves without prompting from leadership.

The Resurrection

Biblical accounts of the resurrection differ on a great number of details of varying significance, including who was at and who went to the tomb, when they arrived, whether nor not the stone covered the tomb, whether or not there was an earthquake, who did what afterwards, how and to whom Jesus made his initial appearances after his resurrection, and the reactions of those he appeared to. The discrepancies are generally attributed to either an understandable confusion on the part of those who witnessed this most extraordinary event, or a sure sign of multiple sources offering creative fictional interpretation of an event they were not witness to themselves.

The Ascension

In both Mark 16:14-19 and Luke 24:50-51, the Ascension takes place the same day as the Resurrection. In Mark, while seated at a table in or near Jerusalem, Jesus commands the Disciples to spread the Gospel and tells them that they may identify themselves to unbelievers by their invulnerability to poison and abilities to heal the sick and then is received into Heaven. In Luke, the Disciples are outdoors at Bethany where Jesus was in the act of blessing them when he was carried up to Heaven.

In Acts 1:9-12, forty days have passed, during which Jesus continued to preach the Gospel. The Disciples are northeast of Bethany, at Mount Olivet. Jesus delivers a brief final message to his Disciples and is taken up and received by a cloud. Two men, clothed in white, appear out of nowhere to tell the Disciples that Jesus will return in the same manner as he was taken.

Matthew contains no mention of the Ascension.

Events only recorded in the Bible

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.

Flight to Egypt

Also as mentioned above, Matthew 2:13-16 records the holy family as having fled to Egypt. Though they may well have remained incognito while they lived there, the Bible says nothing on the matter one way or the other. If they did not keep their identities hidden, it is most likely that Philo, who was living in Alexandria at this time, would have recorded the presence of the prophesied and persecuted future King of the Jews.

Public miracles

The Bible records Jesus as having performed some very public miracles, in front of crowds numbering, in some cases, in the thousands. He healed the sick, blind, and lame; he raised the dead; he walked on water; and he fed multitudes with table scraps. History is replete with people doing such deeds, but every other instance is universally assumed to be mythic fiction.

Public ministry

Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount to a crowd of "multitudes," and the Sermon on the Plain to "great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases." This clearly indicates that Jesus must have been a popular figure known throughout the entire region; yet, no mention is made of any preacher giving such a sermon to such crowds.

The trial

Jesus's trial is notable for what it describes as a great many of the most egregious possible violations of Jewish and Roman law and custom by all officials involved. The trial is said to have taken place during Pesach, one of the holiest holidays for Jews then and now, on which such activities are most strictly forbidden. There was no need for the Jews to appeal to Roman authority for assistance in the trial; they had full authority from the Romans to execute anybody for any reason sanctioned by their own laws. There was even less reason for the Romans to agree to intervene in what would have been to them internecine provincial politics. The behavior of the Sanhedrin, such as spitting on Jesus, would have been just as shocking to people then as would similar action by the members of the United States Supreme Court today. If Pilate had agreed to take the case, he would not have permitted an unruly mob to have remained present, let alone have a say in the trial. While the Romans courts, like all courts, surely freed the guilty and executed the innocent, they never would have publicly declared their intention to do so any more than would any modern court; Pilate's acquiescence in granting the mob Barabbas in exchange for Jesus is incomprehensible. Finally, had Pilate actually acted as described, Rome would have had his head on a platter, figuratively if not literally, for letting a mob dictate his actions as well as for general gross misconduct.

In short, if even one aspect of the trial happened as described, it would have caught the attention--and raised the ire--of a great many important people in the region and beyond. If all of it happened as described, it would have been the most scandalous trial of the millennium.

The crucifixion

While there are undoubtedly many people who were crucified who remain unknown to history, various records of countless crucifixions survive. Romans saw crucifixion as a most ignominious way to die, and, as such, crucifixions often caught the attention of local historians. Sometimes Romans would crucify hundreds of people a day, but they also crucified people singly or in small groups. Josephus records many of these, including that of a Jesus who was the son of a man named Stada, but nobody recorded any crucifixion of a charismatic rebel preacher who could be mistaken for Jesus Christ.

Portents at Jesus's death

The Gospels record ominous portents as having occurred at the time of Jesus's death. As recorded in Matthew 27:45-54 and similarly in the other synoptic Gospels, a three-hour darkness was "over all the land"; the veil of the temple was rent; there was an earthquake; and the graves opened and dead saints "appeared unto many" in Jerusalem.

No eclipse would have been astronomically possible at the time; Pesach, according to the lunar calendar, always is celebrated with the start of the full moon, and eclipses can only happen when the moon is new. Further, no eclipse ever lasts for more than a few minutes--let alone three hours. No account of this most remarkable event, visible from "all the land," can be found outside the Gospels.

Records of major earthquakes from the period are rather comprehensive, yet no recorded earthquake happened at a time when the crucifixion could have happened.

The rending of the veil of the temple would have been a most remarkable occurrence, yet it remained intact until the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.

Had presumably all the graves in the area been opened and a corresponding number of dead saints "appeared unto many" in Jerusalem, it is absolutely certain that those many would have reported the fact, yet none did.

The Resurrected Jesus

Acts 1:3 says that, for forty days after his resurrection, Jesus continued his ministry, yet no extra-Biblical record can be found of the most remarkable fact of a man, very publicly executed, continuing to do for over a month that which got him executed in the first place.

The Ascension

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.

(end of part I removed -- Wesley 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Good to see things moving

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.
  1. 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.
  2. Mine is more concise.
  3. 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?).
  4. 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)

Hey A.J.A., now that you've actually gotten into specifics, I think I largely agree with you. One of the big problems here is that it's not at all clear why there should be separate Jesus-Myth and Historicity of Jesus articles. I don't think this has ever been clearly resolved. john k 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reverts by A.J.A.

A.J.A. has just reverted my edits thus removing references that have been asked for. It also removed wiki link updates I made and reinserted an error by a previous editor stating that Josephus was alive at the same time as Christ. I am struggling to AGF here as it seems accuracy of the article is a side issue to this editor. I will not revert war to reference an article and remove errors. Sophia 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Beside being a POV revert in its own right, your revert tried to slide your POV back in under cover of a few minor improvements. Nope. A.J.A. 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The current intro is plain WRONG as you would know if you actually had knowledge of this subject and not just a POV about it. You have not had the decency to redo the wiki links in the references and I can see you solved the Josephus error by just reverting to the stub type article that is obviously your aim for this topic. As for reinserting the background section - there were references there and almost articles start with an introduction section that gives a short precis of the topic. Removal of this should cause more controversy than replacing it. I did not mark my edit as minor and stated clearly in the edit summary that I was adding references. Editing in this trigger happy "revert if you dare to disagree and never mind about the errors" atmosphere is pointless. As to my first revert - if an editor unknown to any page turned up and blanked most of it with his first edit to that page I would consider him a POV vandal and revert. Subsequent interractions with you are only reinforcing my view that first impressions are often correct. Sophia 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the intro?

As for moving the arguments in favor of the theory to the Talk page, . Moving the arguments against it to Talk because they lack sources while insisting the arguments in favor should stay in the article is hypocritical. A.J.A. 22:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You tell me what's wrong - you're currently calling the shots so I assume you've read the books and are up to date on the subject. I know what changes need to be made to the into statement - have made them and you have reverted them with out explaining why. I can give you references as to why this current intro is wrong but I shouldn't need to if you know your stuff should I? I never had the chance to finish the references before you'd reverted. As to the background section - why does this article not need an intro section? Is that because you see it as a permanent stub? Sophia 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that most of the change you made was simply reverting to the previous version. A few tweaks don't make that reversion uncontested. If the parts you don't like have to be put on Talk until the references are "finished", the same should go for the parts you do like. A.J.A. 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

References were asked for and given. I did not revert to a previous version - I reinserted the background section as to go straight into the "History" section is not the way an article is usually written. The is always (in my experience) a precis/introduction paragraph. The only exception to this that I have seen is when there is a stub article. It is editorial rudeness in the extreme to undo wiki links and other minor edits along with other changes you don't like. You have previously indicated that the removed material should not be replaced even if it is referenced so please answer my previous question - do you wish to see this article as not much more than a stub? Also please change the intro to properly refect the definition of this subject. The actual wording is not important as long as it acurately reflects the topic which it currently does not - the references need to be added in the right places too. I will not edit war on this and you have undone the first part of the changes needed. Sophia 22:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an intro, the deleted content I mentioned above was the stuff which was off-topic to begin with, and no, it's not my job to figure what you want and do it for you. A.J.A. 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A., slow down. In particular, this edit had comment to the effect that there was no reason for this revert, but the change seems to be mostly for the worse. As Sophia said, your change removed several references, and reverted the intro paragraph to your version, and removed an obviously wrong statement about Josephus. Which intro is better is debatable, but every other part of that edit, I think Sophia's is hands down better, unless you have some very specific objection to the references. (I haven't tried to look any of them up, much less checked their credentials etc. Have you? We should both assume good faith regarding the refs at least until we do.) Wesley 06:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Specific arguments of the theory

Early non-Christian references to Jesus

As far as is known at present, only about six or seven early non-Christian references to Jesus appear to exist. This is despite the high degree of literacy in the Roman world, and despite the relatively large number of Roman and Jewish commentators and historians writing in the first century. The paucity of non-Christian evidence is, to advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, an argument from silence that Jesus was a later invention. To critics of the Jesus Myth theory, the silence is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory counter this response by noting that all the evidence which does exist to support Jesus--mainly, the Gospels--describes a monumental figure, performing wondrous miracles and butting heads with the most prominent figures of the day, not some inconsequential nobody.

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers (in the New Testament and its Apocrypha). Of the few non-Christian references, almost all merely mention the existence of Christians and their belief, rather than explicitly mentioning Jesus as having existed. The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is Josephus (37 CE - c. 100 CE), whose Antiquities, written in 93 CE (more than two generations after most Christian scholars date the crucifixion), as preserved in the writings of the Christian apologist Eusebius, contain two references to a Jesus as the founder of a sect.

The first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, contains content that affirms core religious tenets of Christianity rejected by Judaism and thus is most uncharacteristic of a lifelong Jew such as Josephus. It is not mentioned by second-century Christian authors, though several scholars have proposed that when stripped of the implausible Christian phrases, the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable . Jospehus was a historian, alive at the time of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth, and yet none of Josephus' many writings ever mentions Jesus except for a passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) considered forged by some, since the original passage does not exist, and no Christian writers prior to early church biship Eusebius ever quote the alleged Josephus Flavius passage.

The second reference, which merely mentions that a person named Jesus was the brother of a person named James who is traditionally identified as James the Just, is also disputed , though it is mostly--though not universally--regarded as significantly more likely to be authentic than the Testamonium . Nevertheless, the Hebrew form of Jesus, a colloquial form of the name Joshua, was a particularly common name at the time, and the second reference provides only Jesus's name, identification as the Christ ("Messiah" or "anointed one"), and relationship to James.

Paul's presentation of Jesus

Several of the epistles of Paul are regarded as not authentic by a majority of scholars, the Pastoral Epistles being singled out as least likely to be genuine by over two thirds. When the authorship of the Pauline epistles is considered, the epistles can be split into two groups - the seven considered by almost everyone to be genuine, against the rest. In this division, the theology of the disputed group seems, in the eyes of a majority of scholars, to be quite distinct from the theology of the seven undisputed letters. For some writers it is almost as if the disputed group were written specifically to counter the group thought to be genuine.

Although there are occasional references in the disputed group to a flesh-and-blood Jesus, the undisputed group contains limited mention of Jesus as a historic figure. Even though Paul's letters are widely regarded as the earliest Christian documents, they contain very few references to Jesus' actual life and ministry, which the later Gospels detail. Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory claim that Paul's letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus, and so the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul's correspondence are sufficient explanations for the lack of detail of Jesus' life. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory note an abundance of missed rhetorical opportunities to reinforce Paul's points by quoting Jesus or citing well-known events in his life that were directly relevant to the topics he was discussing.

Several commentators, from writers whose theories have not received widespread acceptance, such as Earl Doherty, to widely respected academics and experts in the field, such as Harvard professor Elaine Pagels, have argued that Paul's writing should be interpreted as gnosticism. Christianity arose under a heavy Hellenic culture, Paul himself growing up in Tarsus, the centre of one of the major mystery religions of the time, and Pagels and Doherty (and others) believe that Paul's writing should be viewed in the context of the Hellenic culture which formed his background.

Gnosticism, a diverse religion some of whose branches used some Christian names and ideas and which flourished and subsequently died out in the first through fourth centuries, frequently used allegory and metaphor to guide its initiates towards salvation, which Gnosticism viewed as a form of knowledge (gnosis). Many Gnostic groups even regarded Jesus himself as an allegory, rather than historic, and docetism was rife in Gnostic groups. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe that many parts of the New Testament were written as Gnostic documents, and that Paul's writing is a prominent example of Gnosticism in the New Testament. Accordingly, in this interpretation, those references in the undisputed epistles that appear to refer to events on earth, and a physical historic Jesus, should instead be regarded as allegorical metaphors . These interpretations, of for example Galatians 1:19, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 4:4, Romans 1:3, Romans 3:1, Romans 15:8, and 1 Corinthians 11:23–25, 1 Corinthians 15:4, are regarded by opponents of the Jesus Myth theory as based on forced and erroneous translations .

The influence of the Old Testament

According to a majority of scholars, the synoptic problem - the strong similarities between three of the gospels, is most accurately resolved by the two-source hypothesis, according to which most of the content of Matthew and Luke were copied wholesale from the Gospel of Mark and a lost collection of quotations known as the Q document, with which the Gospel of Thomas is the most similar document of the era. In the small amount of additional material unique to Matthew, amongst the three, Jesus is presented in a way that has strong parallels with significant Old Testament figures, most noticeably Moses, whose birth narrative, and sojourn in the wilderness, Matthew appears to have used as the basis of that of Jesus.

It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Old Testament. In particular, many quotations attributed to the Q document, which the Gospels attribute to Jesus, find parallels in several places of the Old Testament. Advocates of the Jesus Myth believe that the gospels are not history but a type of midrash: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, there is no reason to assume that the sayings attributed to Q, a document theoretically devoid of narrative, originated with Jesus, rather than just being a collection of wisdom from several independent sources, such as the Old Testament. As such, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory claim that when the midrashic elements are removed, little to no content remains that could be used to demonstrate the existence of an historical Jesus .

Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. Although scholars do not agree on the exact nature of this genre, associated works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies, proponents of Jesus' existence believe they contain sufficient historical information to establish his historicity.

Although there are many types of midrash, the Toledot Yeshu jumps out as being the most similar to the proposal that characters and situations were invented wholesale according to religious dogma and Old Testament prophecy. However, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that the closest parallels to potential Moses-based embellishment of the Jesus narrative, are inapplicable. Moreover, there are many examples of ancient Jewish and Christian literature that shaped their stories and accounts according to Old Testament influence, but nevertheless provided some historical accounts ; for example, in 1 Maccabees, Judas and his battles are described in terms which parallel those of Saul's and David's battles against the Philistines in 1 and 2 Samuel, but nevertheless 1 Maccabees has a degree of respect amongst historians as having a reasonable degree of historical reliability (John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of Maccabees, p. 15-17).

Parallels with Mediterranian mystery religions

Some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that many aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have remarkable parallels with life-death-rebirth gods in the widespread mystery religions prevalent in the hellenic culture amongst which Christianty was born. The central figure of one of the most widespread, Osiris-Dionysus, was consistently localised and deliberately merged with local deities in each area, since it was the mysteries which were imparted that were regarded as important, not the method by which they were taught. In the view of some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, most prominently Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, Jewish mystics adapted their form of Osiris-Dionysus to match prior Jewish heroes like Moses and Joshua, hence creating Jesus.

Several parallels are frequently cited by these advocates, and often appear, somewhat less carefully mixed with more dubious parallels, on internet sites. The most prominently cited and plausible parallels are with Horus and Mithras. Horus was one of the life-death-rebirth deities, and was connected and involved in the resurrection of Osiris, whose Egyptian name (Asar) is very similar to the root of Lazarus. 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).

In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into Horus karast (a religious epithet written in Egyptian documents as HR KRST) - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming Christ by being baptised by John, who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser. Worship of Isis, Horus' mother, was a prominent cult, and the proposal that this is the basis of veneration of Mary, and more particularly Marian Iconography, has some merit.

The suggestion of parallels with such myths, however, has frequently gained little traction in the academic community. It is certainly the case that advocates of the Jesus Myth theory citing the parallels are frequently let down by citing dubious sources, choosing to include even ridiculous or implausible parallels, advocating particular theologies to replace Christianity, and using non standard terms (e.g. anup the baptiser rather than Anubis the anointer/embalmer) which others fail to recognise.

Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory regularly accuse those who advocate the existence of such parallels of confusing the issue of who was borrowing from whom , a charge which was also made in ancient times by prominent early Christians. However, it is notable that, unlike modern opponents, several prominent early Christians, like Irenaeus, actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had copied Christian religion and practices, before Jesus was even born, as some form of diabolically inspired pre-cognitive mockery. For their part, the historic opponents of early Christians wrote that Christians had the same religion and practice as they, but were too stupid to understand it.

In later years, Mithras worship became the most prominent rival to Christianity, and the idea that many Christian practices, including 25th December being Jesus' birth-date, and Sunday being the dedicated day of worship, derived originally from Mithraism is regarded as likely by many mainstream historians. Mithras was a solar deity, and so was seen as being born just after the winter solstice, and the day each week officially dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the day of the invincible sun, in turn being renamed Sunday; the references in Luke and Matthew, though, point to Jesus being more likely to have been born in April or September, and Saturday was the original day of Christian worship before Constantine I moved it. Parallels between Mithras and the birth-narrative of Luke are also proposed by some advocates of the Jesus myth, since Mithras, as a sun god, was born under the zodiac sign that at that time was known as the stable of Augeas, though these latter parallels are not so supported in the academic community.

When Christianity became the official and only religion in the Roman Empire, many temples of Mithras became Christian churches. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory regard this as significant since the lack of dissent appears to them to indicate that the religions were so similar that the prior Mithras-worshippers felt that hardly anything significant had occurred.

Supporters of Jesus' historicity point out that even Christian sources acknowledge that the public celebration of Jesus' birth was adopted from the date of the festival of Sol Invictus, and that this has no bearing on the reliability of the Gospels, since they make no claims about the date. Neither do any Christian churches claim that the date for the celebration is anything other than symbolic.

Historiography and methodology

Price and other advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the inconsistencies between the Gospels, birth stories, genealogies, chronologies, and other parts of the narrative makes them worthless as historical documents. According to these authors, the historiography of the Gospels means that they can provide no meaningful historical information about the time Jesus was alleged to have lived, but only about the authors of the Gospels and their own communities .

Although seldom remarked on by New Testament scholars, some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that historians lack any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As J. D. Crossan, a well respected scholar of early Christianity, comments, I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata. While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that the Paul described in Acts, or even Napoleon, did not exist, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe it does call into question the results of historical inquiry into Jesus of Nazareth.

Opponents of the theory, including skeptical commentators such as the Jesus Seminar, argue that some reliable information can be extracted from the Gospels if consistent critical methodology is used.

Moved to here until it's sourced and made NPOV. A.J.A. 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What's POV about it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.242.147.209 (talk • contribs) .

A.J.A., a lot of what you removed is already sourced. That's why I didn't cut these parts before. Why shouldn't at least the sourced parts be put straight back in? Wesley 06:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wesley we are dealing with a one-trick-pony here. He's read an apologetics book - thinks that is all there is to it and has rewritten the article to reflect this. I do not have all the books mentioned in the old article but I have quite a few and can see I need to get the rest to head off this crusade. I have no idea what happens in situations like this where you have a new editor who has a strong POV - who is quite happy to edit war to push it but has demonstrated that he knows little of the subject. As it stands we have an article that pretty much removes the substance and only leaves criticisms of the theory - bit like what was done to early heretical Christian sects by the first apologetics. Ironic huh? Sophia 06:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how good you aren't at determining personal facts about me.

You were evidently satisfied with the old version. Or at least, not dissatisfied enough to do much about it. And then you've got the nerve to talk smack about me. Incredible. A.J.A. 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The old version had problems and was tagged - we all have real lives and other articles we work on. Not ideal I know but that is the reality of wikipedia. Sophia 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly we all have real lives, and should be judged on the edits and comments we actually make, not the ones we don't make. Still, let's try to stay focused on the content of the article. A.J.A., I'll ask once more: any reason why the bits you removed, that do have some kind of sources, shouldn't be put right back in? Wesley 16:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Couple thoughts - I'm a newcomer to the article, but most of the above referenced cut info really looks like it should be kept in. The older cut info should be moved to Historicity of Jesus, IMHO. There seems to be confusion between the two articles, and while I support having both articles, the content doesnt' seem to reflect the differences in the articles. Also, just because the gospels may or may not be reliable as factual historical documents, doesn't seem to support the Jesus-Myth theory. What is needed is research into what ancient documents support the theory, as compared to which ones don't support the historicity of Jesus. I'd structure the article as what the Jesus-Myth is, who supports it and why, and then who are the detractors and why. Just my two cents. Adding to my watch list. -Visorstuff 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the last few days we have been hit by a POV warrior who is obviously offended by this whole subject. Your suggestions are constructive and well reasoned and I would be happy to help you make the changes. At the moment I'm the only one on this page who has read the books and I keep getting reverted to this current stub-linke article. Please look at the history of the page and see what it was like before 28th April. You are right that there was too much crossover and some stuff should go but the point about the documents that don't mention Jesus is made by some Jesus-Myth proponents which is why it is here and should be mentioned. Sophia 07:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it's been three days and there have been no objections to putting the most recently cut part back in, I've restored it. If there are places in it that need citations, it would be better to add {{fact}} tags to them, as Sophia has done elsewhere. Still need to look at where and how to restore other parts that were cut. Wesley 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wesley. I'm going to wait for A.J.A. to wake up before I bother to put all the wikilinks back that he reverted. Sophia 17:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Related article.

I just found this one: Bible conspiracy theory. Arch O. La 23:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As per my username: "Last one in's a freemason!" Homestarmy 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering what "Homestarmy" means, but you'll have to explain the link to freemasonry. Arch O. La 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy comes from , 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)

I read all the info on using the talk page but I don't see the "post a comment" link/button on the discussion page for the Jesus-Myth article. I wanted to leave a note that I edited the title of an external article link but I don't see how to add a new comment. I edited the critique of the Jesus Puzzle to say it is only a critique of two minor points from Doherty's book. ProfessorG 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How many citations are needed?

I haven't looked at this article in a while. I'm sure it all developed gradually and more or less reasonably, but the early sections have gotten to where they read like they were written by a citation-needed maniac. For instance, Frazer's thesis is famous, and it's treated so briefly here that you shouldn't need a special citation. A link to the book in question (The Golden Bough) should be adequate. Interested readers can follow the link to find all the information about editions and scholarship they could want, as well as an external link to an edition of the book itself. Or link to the book directly. I'm all in favor of citations, but this has gotten out of hand. Maestlin 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article needed a whole lot more citation-needed-s.

While adding them, I came across this gem: "]". A.J.A. 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The last lot of wikilinks and references I added were reverted by A.J.A. under the pretext that he didn't like another part of the same edit. He didn't have the good manners to put them back either so I am wary of spending anytime on this article as it will just be reverted. Sophia 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The scattering of "citation needed" notes is not even; where there is one every sentence or one in the middle of a sentence, it is excessive, whether or not more are needed in other parts of the article. This sort of problem makes Misplaced Pages look like trash, and it's harder to read the article. Have the regular editors here been seeking outside neutral opinions? Maestlin 20:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)