| Revision as of 18:29, 2 January 2015 editRenejs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users544 edits →Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:03, 2 January 2015 edit undoJelamkorj (talk | contribs)90 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 530: | Line 530: | ||
| ::Interesting discussion, and I seem to detect some movement. With surprise I find both Martijn and Jeppiz in agreement with me on the specific issue at hand: that Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is "wrong." In fact, that's ALL I'm saying here. Because Grant's 1977 statement is now wrong, it has no place in this 2015 article. I feel no choice but to continue to revert to the accepted limit of 3x per day until we either hash this out or resort to arbitration on this issue which is very clear to me.] (]) 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | ::Interesting discussion, and I seem to detect some movement. With surprise I find both Martijn and Jeppiz in agreement with me on the specific issue at hand: that Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is "wrong." In fact, that's ALL I'm saying here. Because Grant's 1977 statement is now wrong, it has no place in this 2015 article. I feel no choice but to continue to revert to the accepted limit of 3x per day until we either hash this out or resort to arbitration on this issue which is very clear to me.] (]) 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| I am a very irregular reader of this page. Now I just feel like adding a | |||
| remark, surely not planning to fight here for anything personally. | |||
| I always felt that closing this article with this quote by Grant from | |||
| 1977 is very inappropriate, already from a simple view of chronology. | |||
| I fully understand people like Renejs who try to make the article more | |||
| sensible (at least) in this respect. | |||
| I can add that as a wikipedia reader I would think that Grant had himself carefully | |||
| explored the arguments of so called mythicists (until his time, which | |||
| is almost forty years ago) and had demonstrated that their authors violate the | |||
| standard scholarly methods or so ... But this impression seems | |||
| misleading, as I judge from the below quote by Doherty (which I | |||
| take from http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut1.htm). | |||
| Before giving the quote, I stress that I certainly | |||
| do not suggest that the wiki-article should contain this quote by | |||
| Doherty; I just stress that if somebody thinks that the quote by Grant | |||
| belongs in the article, then (s)he should give enough context so that | |||
| the reader is not mislead. | |||
| {{quote| | |||
| But the conviction continues that this work of refutation has long since been completed and scarcely needs revisiting. | |||
| A typical example is historian Michael Grant, who in Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (1977), devotes a few paragraphs to the question in an Appendix. There , he says: | |||
| “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” | |||
| One will note that Grant’s statement about answering and annihilating, and the remark about serious scholars, are in quotes, and are in fact the opinions of previous writers. Clearly, Grant himself has not undertaken his own ‘answer’ to mythicists. Are those quoted writers themselves scholars who have undertaken such a task? In fact, they are not. One referenced writer, Rodney Dunkerley, in his Beyond the Gospels (1957, p.12), devotes a single paragraph to the “fantastic notion” that Jesus did not actually live; its exponents, he says, “have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars,” but since he declares it “impossible to summarize those scholars’ case here,” he is not the source of Grant’s conviction. Nor can that be Oskar Betz, from whose What Do We Know About Jesus? (1968, p.9) Grant takes his second quote. Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.” This ignores many serious presentations of that very idea since Bousset, and evidently relies on defining “serious” as excluding anyone who would dare to undertake such a misguided task. | |||
| }} | |||
| I wish good luck to all editors who try to give this article an | |||
| impartial and sensible form.] (]) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:03, 2 January 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Index
|
|
Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
To Do List: Source Verification and Revisions
Use this section to report false, misquoted, and misrepresented citations, and to explain subsequent revisions.
Citations Specifying the Narrow Definition of the CMT
| section is for references only |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Mythicist arguments need to be summarized.
I find this page shockingly weak. Many of the entries seem to be biased toward the historicist position, and that is the least of its troubles. The actual points made by the mythicists are not summarized. For example, Richard Carrier does not just conclude that there was at most 1/3 chance of Jesus existing. He spent an entire book (Proving History) showing how all the arguments for historicity do not stand up to examination and logic. There are many specifics to his case that could be summarized here. He also presented a solid scientific approach to evaluating historical claims. In his next book (the one cited in the Misplaced Pages page), he then applied that method.
The criticism of the mythicists included on this page repeatedly centers around the opinion of the majority rather than what is confirmed by facts. For the few concrete criticisms, rebuttals from the mythicists are not included. I have not spent a lot of time looking at Biblical wiki pages, but it honestly shocks me to compare the quality of reportage on this page compared to, say, that on topics in physics.
Jojoblum (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Jo
- Misplaced Pages does not give equal validity to positions that receive less academic support, which is determined by due weight from sources, rather than choosing one source and rejecting others. In other words, the conclusions of the majority trump the claims of the minority.
- This is parallel to our article on Evolution: the majority in the field hold a particular position which we repeat, while we shuffle off the "alternative" to an article that's mostly criticism. To date, Carrier's work is the only peer-reviewed Mythicist work from an academic publisher, while there are plenty that (regardless of whether individual editors disagree or want to argue against it) take a Historicist position. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of "scholars in Europe" sentence from 3rd paragraph
The sentence currently reads: However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.
If it were correct, the sentence would belong better in the Historicity of Jesus article (where it is also found). However, the idea that Europe especially fosters varying views on Jesus is indefensible. A quick review (off the top of my head) brings up the cynic Jesus (Crossan, Mack), the Jewish Jesus (Meier), the revolutionary Jesus (Brandon), the healing Jesus (S. Davies). . . These scholars are all North American and one could easily go on. It has often been noted (on both sides of the Atlantic) that every scholar seemingly has his own "Jesus"--a bedeviling aspect of the field. From the citation, it appears that the original author of the sentence was overly swayed by a recent compilation book ("Is This Not the Carpenter") which has chapters primarily by European scholars. The sentence's final clause is also inane: "there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic." This is what New Testament scholars do all the time. Barring some cogent objection, I will delete the sentence.Renejs (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I came to the talk page because of the very same sentence. There's no such thing as a 'European' perspective here, scholars everywhere almost unanimously reject the fringe theory that is the topic of this article. It does not have more (or less) scholarly support in Europe than elsewhere.Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is however a "Copenhagen school" which I believe is even notable in and of itself which seems to be among the primary supporters of the theory of the non-historicity of Jesus. I have found at least two articles on JSTOR which specifically relate to the Copenhagen school in the title. Also, there does seem to be some sort of more broad and I think maybe notable "German school" of history regarding this topic. While I agree the word "certain" probably does not belong here, I can see referencing maybe the two schools if content on them should ever be created. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The statement doesn't say that European scholars are more sympathetic to the CMT, it says (or rather suggests) that among those advocating a new examination of the evidence European scholars are prominent, which is not at all the same thing. I'm not sure that's true either, but if we're objecting to something let's make sure we do so for the right reasons, not out of some knee-jerk anti CMT sentiment. In any event, clearing up the wording might be an improvement. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- As John Carter says, there is a 'Copenhagen school', though its prominent spokesperson is American. If it's just the Copenhagen school we're referring to, we should say that, instead of a vague "European". Not sure what "knee-jerk anti CMT sentiment" Martijn Meijering is talking about and it does not appear to add to the discussion. The two problems with the sentence is (1) the term "European" which seems to be WP:OR and (2) portraying it as something new. The Copenhagen school has been around for many decades and always held the same views, while always been seen as fringe by others. In this article, I think mentioning the theories of the Copenhagen school is entirely appropriate, but we should not make it out to be a "European" view nor a "new" view when neither of those claims are correct.Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Copenhagen "School" is certainly notable enough, but I thought they were mainly concerned with OT studies, not NT studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- At least one book of essays I recovered for either this or the Historicity of Jesus article was from the Copenhagen school and specifically dealt with the question of the historicity of Jesus or the possibility of his being some sort of myth. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if we (and the paragraph) are discussing apples and oranges. This article is supposedly about the CMT. But the paragraph under discussion is not about that. It's about the "nearly universal consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship", "a number of plausible 'Jesuses' that could have existed", and "The two main events agreed upon by most biblical scholars." The thing is, the CMT doesn't espouse any Jesus.
- The Copenhagen "School" is certainly notable enough, but I thought they were mainly concerned with OT studies, not NT studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- As John Carter says, there is a 'Copenhagen school', though its prominent spokesperson is American. If it's just the Copenhagen school we're referring to, we should say that, instead of a vague "European". Not sure what "knee-jerk anti CMT sentiment" Martijn Meijering is talking about and it does not appear to add to the discussion. The two problems with the sentence is (1) the term "European" which seems to be WP:OR and (2) portraying it as something new. The Copenhagen school has been around for many decades and always held the same views, while always been seen as fringe by others. In this article, I think mentioning the theories of the Copenhagen school is entirely appropriate, but we should not make it out to be a "European" view nor a "new" view when neither of those claims are correct.Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with John (above) in the sense that northern Europe, especially, has long been a bastion of the CMT. I write anecdotally now, but people have told me that the CMT is rampant in Scandinavia among commoners--and it has been so in Russia since their revolution. Thomas Thompson and Lemche (Copenhagen)--though their careers were formed in OT minimalism, are now taking interest in NT "minimalism" or (even) CMT. The minimalists are sympathetic--this includes Philip Davies in the U.K. However, these European minimalists don't seem to want the "mythicist" label (Thompson has strenuously objected to it).
- Getting back to the article, though, I wonder if it's not best to just shorten the whole paragraph as follows: "Despite the nearly universal consensus agreement in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived (see Historical Jesus), this article is devoted to the Fringe theory that questions the existence of a historical Jesus." This doesn't get into the historicity issue of who believes in what Jesus, and where. It keeps the focus on the CMT which is a "fringe theory."Renejs (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Totally non-neutral, totally unacceptable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Getting back to the article, though, I wonder if it's not best to just shorten the whole paragraph as follows: "Despite the nearly universal consensus agreement in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived (see Historical Jesus), this article is devoted to the Fringe theory that questions the existence of a historical Jesus." This doesn't get into the historicity issue of who believes in what Jesus, and where. It keeps the focus on the CMT which is a "fringe theory."Renejs (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Totally factual, totally acceptable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would object to the phrasing as proposed, both because it prejudicially casts judgment on the topic and seems to cast at least all potential theories which might be discussed permanently in the "fringe" category. It is certainly possible, I haven't checked, that a theory that virtually all information about the subject could at least be potentially based on mythic sources, or reflect the content of pre-existing myths, is other than fringe. I am far from sure that such a contention is a fringe theory. Also, regarding the supporters, like I said, there seems to be or at least have been a "German school" associated with Bruno Bauer and others which raised these questions in historical times. While they may not be current, understandably, considering they the founders were basically 19th century individuals, I am far from sure that the theories at that time were fringe theories, and implying otherwise might be problematic. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, yes, the word "fringe" definitely has a pejorative overtone, but also a scientific basis (ultimately on statistical grounds). We're obviously divided. Maybe one of you wants to submit this page to the Wiki Noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard) for opinion. My main point, though, in editing this 3rd paragraph of the article is not the "fringe" aspect but to place focus of the page on the CMT--which is lost everywhere else.
- If you look at the "Categories" at the bottom of the article, "Fringe theory", "Denialism", etc. are not there. So, maybe we should just keep it that way and leave "fringe" out.
- But I suggest keeping the last sentence of par. 3 as it presently reads (about the baptism and Pilate). This in accordance with what the Wiki guidelines say: "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories).
- So, after all this, the following paragraph results: "The two main events agreed upon by most biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Despite the near universal consensus agreement in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, however (see Historical Jesus), this article is devoted to the theory that questions the existence of a historical Jesus."
- How's that?Renejs (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks better to me, but I don't think it's an improvement over what we have. The lede and the article itself already make it abundantly clear that this view is held only by a tiny minority of scholars and is strongly opposed by the vast majority. If the concern is over the phrase "particularly in Europe", why not just delete that then? It might actually be true however, so maybe it would be better to add a "citation needed" tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Martin, did you miss my comment above? (See first entry in this section). This sentence has problems. It is inaccurate and the last part is inane. It does not add "context" like the one on John the Baptist/Pilate or the sentence on "near universal consensus." It seems to me like a historicist intrusion into this article.Renejs (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have previously concluded that the main proponents of the CMT don't all agree on what the CMT is, and some of the major positions do accept that a real human might have been the basis for the Jesus stories, so we need to tread carefully here. While people like Carrier are much different to the mainstream, many other CMT views are so close to the mainstream that they are hardly distinguishable. I would suggest that we only change the middle sentence, to read "However other scholars state that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus." This is factually correct, neutral and simple, yes? Wdford (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me how that is an improvement. In fact, it leaves out the important point that a few scholars have called for a reexamination of the issue, so it looks like the opposite of an improvement to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- While nnot disagreeing that some scholars have called for a reexamination of the issue, unfortunately, that isn't that necessarily significant. Erich von Daniken in his early books made a point of having his primary statement be something along "these issues require further study". It's a fairly obvious and easy attempt at hedging, insinuation and misdirection, and has fairly regularly been used as a support of weak arguments . While I am not disagreeing that the issue might merit further study, because pretty much everything merits further study, it would be helpful if we were to say that to say specifically what they think most worthy and demanding of further study. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, von Däniken isn't regarded as a serious scholar, and in the case of the CMT we have several respectable sources saying the idea deserves more attention, so the cases aren't identical. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Martijn and find your sentence confusing. Are not the "other scholars" the same ones who maintain "a nearly universal consensus"?Renejs (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a denialist fringe theory, that is about as mainstream in historical Jesus studies as young-earth creationism is in mainstream biology. Misplaced Pages's tone regarding both should be the same.--TMD Talk Page. 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- 1) You don't get to make that call, several reliable sources take it seriously and say it deserves more scrutiny, 2) HJ studies is not the only relevant field as regards the CMT and 3) the field of HJ studies itself has been criticised for a lack of impartiality and a lack of proper scholarly methodology, as have the overlapping but distinct wider fields of theology and religious studies, so they do not deserve the deference we give to a hard scientific discipline like biology. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I side with Martijn here. It doesn't matter how mainstream or not the CMT is, because this article is devoted to (and needs to be focused on) the CMT. That is not negotiable. And that gets back to removing the sentence about views on different sorts of Jesus. Let's face it, there are lots of those views everywhere.Renejs (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- 1) You don't get to make that call, several reliable sources take it seriously and say it deserves more scrutiny, 2) HJ studies is not the only relevant field as regards the CMT and 3) the field of HJ studies itself has been criticised for a lack of impartiality and a lack of proper scholarly methodology, as have the overlapping but distinct wider fields of theology and religious studies, so they do not deserve the deference we give to a hard scientific discipline like biology. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is a denialist fringe theory, that is about as mainstream in historical Jesus studies as young-earth creationism is in mainstream biology. Misplaced Pages's tone regarding both should be the same.--TMD Talk Page. 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's still not clear to me how that is an improvement. In fact, it leaves out the important point that a few scholars have called for a reexamination of the issue, so it looks like the opposite of an improvement to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looks better to me, but I don't think it's an improvement over what we have. The lede and the article itself already make it abundantly clear that this view is held only by a tiny minority of scholars and is strongly opposed by the vast majority. If the concern is over the phrase "particularly in Europe", why not just delete that then? It might actually be true however, so maybe it would be better to add a "citation needed" tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it certainly IS a denialist fringe theory (see the reference section below). The fact that there are a few RS's that claim the CMT requires more scrutiny is irrelevant to its fringe status. Even proponents of the CMT recognize that (once again, see reference section below). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I find your comment irrelevant (and wrong). Once again, Wiki has an article on CMT, and that's not negociable. Like it or not, we're here to talk about the CMT. It's not good enough to slap labels on it, like "denialist" and "fringe." Besides, the former label is untenable. If you're familiar with the voluminous writings of many mythicists you know that they don't just deny but often carefully reason things out--sometimes quite meticulously.Renejs (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read any of the citations below? Even proponents of the CMT recognize its fringe status. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Bill the Cat 7 is absolutely right. Not only can we describe CMT as a fringe theory, we must do it under Misplaced Pages's policies. Of course we should have this article, and nobody is contesting that. However, Misplaced Pages's policies are very clear: articles on fringe theories can exist, but must make clear that the theory in question is a fringe theory. Even in Scandinavia which, as said above, is probably the place where CMT is most popular, actual historians (as opposed to laymen) disregard it completely. Commenting on it quite recently, Professor Dick Harrison dismissed CMT as nothing but a "conspiracy theory". We should have this article, and any article of this kind must make clear that it deals with a fringe theory. It goes for holocaust denial and creationism and it goes for CMT as well. The fact that a rare academic can be found to lend some support to any of these theories does not change anything (and that, again, is Misplaced Pages policy, not my opinion).Jeppiz (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fringe is not the same as a minority view, even if it is held only by a tiny minority. Fringe is things like alien abductions etc. Harrison is an interesting find though, one of very few real historians who have commented on the issue, and I think we should cite his opinion. Nevertheless it remains his opinion, and several respectable sources disagree. We should therefore report the controversy, and not decide it for ourselves. We could add wording like "most scholars are dismissive of the CMT, some scathingly so. The historian Dick Harrison has dismissed the CMT as "nothing but a conspiracy theory". Others have recently have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic." Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Once again, however, I regret the repetition of the claim that more research needs to be done without some sort of indication as to what that research and debate should be about. Like I said before, in virtually every field of history, there are those who disagree with the academic consensus. In most of those cases, they tend to say "we're right, they're wrong" and imply something to the effect of "if they just agreed with us, ..." which in academic language often gets translated to "there needs to be more research and debate." It would help a lot if there were some indication as to what sort of information that research and debate should be about. In an extreme, fictitious, example, where, for instance, we have one surviving signature attributed to a person, which 90% of academia agrees looks valid but 10% who say the person or event signed about didn't happen, there will also be claims that "there needs to be more research (or discovery of data) and debate." Unfortunately, in that example, the only thing to debate is the signature which might be considered reasonable by those who examined it. It would help a lot if, instead of just saying the dissidents say there needs to be more research and debate, we were able to point toward specific extant evidence or topics which they say most merits research and debate. Otherwise, like with the fictitious signature example, it can come across as just people saying "I know I'm right, the evidence to support it just hasn't appeared yet," which, basically, is the sort of thing the Lone Gunmen and similar real people have said, and it often gets perceived in much the same way as their claims. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- How should it be described? Let's see how the RS's have desribed it.
- With disdain
- Totally rejected
- Amused contempt
- Equated with the moon being made of green cheese
- Popular with cranks
- Olympian scorn
- Supported by non-respected scholars
- Calling it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.
- Conclusion? Indisputably, it's fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- That does not necessarily mean that the words "fringe theory" must be used exactly. While I agree that the theory seems to be only currently supported by a very small minority, and even acknowledge the possibility/probability of it being today, in at least some cases, a form of "conspiracy theory" as per the above, I am much less sure that it has always been a fringe theory, as I indicated above, and I think RECENTISM or similar might come into play there. Saying it is a theory which has been supported by only a small minority, and/or rejected by the possibly overwhelming majority, would probably be more informative and thus more useful to the reader than the specific phrase "fringe theory" itself. Pseudohistory might, conceivably, be more useful, if the word or its effective equivalent has been verifiably used in this case, which I don't know one way or another. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that some, perhaps most, of the material written in support of the CMT qualifies as pseudohistory. However, the same is true of much of the stuff written on the historical Jesus, and we have reputable sources inside and outside biblical scholarship to that effect. In any event, in recent years the CMT has mostly been a phenomenon in the popular literature. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment John Carter, I was unclear. I'm not saying we must or should use the exact words "fringe theory" (accurate though they would be), just that we must make sure a reader of this article understands that this article is a fringe theory, meaning a theory that virtually all experts find erroneous. That can certainly be done without using the word "fringe".Jeppiz (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Attempt #2 from the top. I started this talk section to address a sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the article, and plan to keep coming back to that until we actually get the job done--not necessarily my way, but in a way that some sort of consensus emerges on issues raised in the sentence. Hopefully, "fringe theory" won't hijack us again this time. . .
- The sentence as it stands has lots of errors, and I'll mention just a few. First of all, the lack of certainty regarding which historical Jesus goes back a long time. It's not "recent." Secondly, that lack of certainty is not limited to "certain scholars" but is universal, as I already noted above in this discussion. Thirdly, I have to wonder what this sentence is doing in this article, an article which isn't about the variety of different proposed "Jesuses" but about non-belief in any historical Jesus at all.
- The sentence would, in my opinion, read much more correctly if it were split into two, roughly as follows: "Scholars have long concluded that, while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which was the historical Jesus. However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently questioned the very existence of a historical Jesus." This is now correct. Jesus mythicism is burgeoning in Northern Europe, Russia, and among the Dutch Radicals. A British New Testament scholar (the late Maurice Casey) wrote earlier this year: "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist" ("Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" 2014).
- OK. I think the CMT sentence under discussion needs to reflect what Casey says. Remember, this isn't about "fringe theory." The proposed amendment above says simply: "However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently questioned the very existence of a historical Jesus." Is that simple statement too threatening for some of us?Renejs (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- My one real reservation is to the proposed first sentence of the proposed two sentences, as it is less than clear I think. "number of plausible Jesuses" is really less than clear language. I would think that maybe a more accurate and less possibly unintentionally leading statement might be something along the lines of the following, which is admittedly based on possibly flawed memory and error. But something along the lines of saying that the academic consensus is that Jesus was killed by crucifixion, and that's pretty much all they agree on, and that there are any number of possible theories as to what happened to make that happen, might be longer, but maybe a bit clearer. Also, the proposed first sentence seems to be to me anyway somewhat indicating that the following content would discuss the separate proposals as specific proposals, and I don't know that we want the article to do that. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Citations Specifying that the CMT is Fringe
| section is for references only |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Citations:
|
Multiple Jesuses argument
OK, I have seen this topic introduced on this talk page and the Historicity of Jesus talk page, and still don't really know what it is about.
Is there now some proposal that there were multiple Jesuses whose story somehow got merged into one story? If so, exactly which independent reliable sources put forward this theory, and what exactly are the details of it? John Carter (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think any scholar believes there were multiple historical Jesuses in the flesh. What the phrase "a number of plausible Jesuses" (3rd par. 2nd sentence) refers to is the multiplicity of scholarly views regarding his basic nature. As I mentioned in the previous section, we have Jesus the militant revolutionary (Brandon), the cynic (Crossan, Mack), the Jew (Meier, Vermes, Sanders), the quasi-Buddhist (Borg), the healer (S. Davies), Jesus the humble king (N. T. Wright) etc. And those are all North American scholars. But the disagreement over the basic character of Jesus is universal, not restricted to Europe, so the words "particularly in Europe" should be removed, IMO. Also, the variety of views is not recent but goes back a long time. So, the word "recently" should be removed from the sentence.
- I suspect the original author of the sentence meant to say something like this: that "certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently questioned the very existence of a historical Jesus." It's the existence of the historical Jesus which is (or should be) the focus of this article. That's the amendment I suggest. Even this proposed amendment is not absolutely true, because recently a number of American scholars have endorsed the CMT: Tom Harpur (Canada), Robt. Price, and R. Carrier (with Ph.D's). They augment the European scholars (G. Wells, Brodie, Ellegard, probably several minimalists and the Copenhagen school, etc.) The CMT actually goes back a long time in Europe (to Dupuis, B. Bauer, etc. See http://www.mythicistpapers.com/timeline-of-jesus-mythicism/).
- So, I'd now propose the rewrite as follows: Scholars have long concluded that, while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which was the historical Jesus. However, certain scholars have questioned the very existence of a historical Jesus.
- It's not that I find this sentence all that important. It's just that I want to improve the article and this is where I've started. That's all. But I don't like making unilateral changes without consensus. Hence, talking it out here first... ;-)Renejs (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Robert Price considers an "amalgamated Jesus" a serious possibility. Specifically, I've heard him mention the theory that the narrative of the triumphal entry is based on a historical story about Simon bar Giora. Another of these merged historical figures may have been the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, as Ellegard believed. The Teacher himself may also be a composite of several historical characters. I'm not aware of anyone who specifically endorses the amalgamation theory as a probability rather than just a possibility. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Would you include the "amalgamation" in the CMT? I mean, would this also fit into "Jesus mythicism"?Renejs (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess to me the line to cross would be if a specific form of amalgamation is in and of itself supported as an theory independent of other theories by perhaps more than one individual. We wouldn't want to violate WP:SYNTH by declaring things similar on our own, and it wouldn't be particularly useful to have a separate section indicating the variant ideas Martin indicates above, particularly if those are only elements of an individual scholar's broader thought on the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of citations to the Robert Price section of this article in clarification of his position. Price indeed sees Jesus as an amalgamation, but holds out the possibility that one of those threads may be authentic. He writes about his view in the "Euhemerism" section of his 2000 book, "Deconstructing Jesus." In fact, on p. 250 he tends to the view that an original prophet underlay the Christian religion--but that prophet had nothing to do with "Jesus of Nazareth." Personally, I agree with this. This view has also been termed "semi-mythicism" (http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/11/14/what-is-mythicism/).Renejs (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- It should be noted that an amalgamation does NOT seem to fit Carrier's Minimal Mythical Jesus though it would qualify as not being a "historical Jesus in any pertinent sense". But note that if you compare Carrier's Minimal Mythical Jesus with his Minimal Historical Jesus there is a gap between the two. So while Carrier classified G. A. Wells' Jesus Legend as ahistoricitical it does NOT fit his criteria for Minimal Mythical Jesus and therefore not CMT as Carrier defines it.--216.223.234.97 (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of citations to the Robert Price section of this article in clarification of his position. Price indeed sees Jesus as an amalgamation, but holds out the possibility that one of those threads may be authentic. He writes about his view in the "Euhemerism" section of his 2000 book, "Deconstructing Jesus." In fact, on p. 250 he tends to the view that an original prophet underlay the Christian religion--but that prophet had nothing to do with "Jesus of Nazareth." Personally, I agree with this. This view has also been termed "semi-mythicism" (http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2012/11/14/what-is-mythicism/).Renejs (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess to me the line to cross would be if a specific form of amalgamation is in and of itself supported as an theory independent of other theories by perhaps more than one individual. We wouldn't want to violate WP:SYNTH by declaring things similar on our own, and it wouldn't be particularly useful to have a separate section indicating the variant ideas Martin indicates above, particularly if those are only elements of an individual scholar's broader thought on the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Would you include the "amalgamation" in the CMT? I mean, would this also fit into "Jesus mythicism"?Renejs (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true
The paragraph citing Robert Grant from 1977 is an obvious place where the CMT article needs *updating.* Grant's views have long been superseded, particularly his flat-out wrong assertion that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." This statement may (arguably) have been correct in 1977, but it is certainly not correct today. Given the more recent accession of Harpur, Brodie, Price, and Carrier (all Ph.D.'s in the field) to the CMT thesis, Grant's assertion is undeniably false--that is, "untenable." Misplaced Pages does not disseminate incorrect information. If someone wishes to defend Grant's 1977 view in 2014/15 please justify "why." Because it is now false, this old view must be deleted. I am willing to live with Martijn's latest version of the paragraph. However, if someone's reversion retains this particularly false assertion of Grant, then I think we'll have legitimate questions regarding NPOV, objectivity, and will need an Administrator's opinion on what is true and what is false. This doesn't have anything to do with what is mentioned in the preceding section. It has to do with disseminating provably false information in the article.Renejs (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo what John Carter said. We do not endorse Grant's view, either then or now, we merely report it. This is a fundamental Misplaced Pages policy that often surprises outsiders. We do not state the WP:TRUTH, we report what reliable sources have to say about it. This is necessary because Misplaced Pages is a) an encyclopedia and therefore doesn't publish original research and b) is edited by a group of both experts and non-experts, open to all. From your posting history, it appears that your edits have been mostly confined to areas related to the CMT and your book. This is what Misplaced Pages policy calls a single purpose account, which is allowed but discouraged. The reason it is discouraged is because it is easy for the goals of an SPA (generally advocacy) to conflict with those of Misplaced Pages. I think you will do all of us, yourself included, a favour if you read up on the relevant policies. Right now you are violating policy by engaging in edit warring, you have several times reinstated controversal edits over the objections of other editors. The recommended procedure is called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a Bold edit, which is fine, someone else Reverted it, which is also fine, and now we need to Discuss it first on this Talk page and try to reach a consensus. Unless and until you obtain a new consensus the status quo should remain. These are longstanding policies and breaking them is likely to lead to a swift block. If you revert your most recent reinsertion and stop edit-warring, I think you'll find people will be willing to work with you to address your concerns. I for one will certainly do so. I think we got off to a bad start, but I suspect that's mainly because you are insufficiently familiar with the relevant policies, and people are objecting both to your edits and your frankly rather flagrant if perhaps unwitting violations of longstanding policies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it doesn't have to be deleted. History of most topics is relevant to our articles. While it might be required to say that he said that in 1977, and that it could be used at least to source a statement regarding the then-current and previous status of the field. Also, regretably, the simple holding of Ph.D.'s does not in and of itself make someone a "serious" scholar. Lots of people have Ph.D.'s, even in their own fields, and are still counted as being less than serious. Rupert Sheldrake's theories of plants come to mind here. The real question here probably relates to something that would probably be best addressed, and possibly only addressed, by input of others. While saying nothing against any of the individuals involved, I don't know that the precise distinction between "fringe" and "minority" theories has ever been conclusively worked out here. Having some clear idea as to where to draw the line, particularly in application of policies and guidelines, might be useful. It also might never actually get done, and I tend to think personally the latter is more likely than the former, but requesting clarification on that point might be useful for this topic and maybe at least a few others as well. Also, for claims to be counted "provably" false, there really must be some sort of absolute "proof", and I hope no one takes it the wrong way if I say that the simple publication of something by people with doctorates in their fields "proves" that they are "serious" is logically problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- If Grant's view is demonstrably obsolete, then it should not be included in the article. But, Renejs, I think the onus is on you here to do the demonstrating. Could you please provide quotes from the scholars you mention which show that they "postulate the non-historicity of Jesus"? Could you also provide evidence that they are "serious scholars"? I don't think the benchmark needs to be particularly high, but John is correct that having a PhD is not enough in itself. Where have they been published? What posts have they held? How has their work been received? Price, for example, can be counted as a serious scholar, but I'm not sure it has ever been his position that Jesus did not exist. I could be wrong. Please show me that I am. Formerip (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
OK.
- FormerIP: "If Grant's view is demonstrably obsolete, then it should not be included in the article."
Renejs: You said it. ;-)
- FormerIP: "But, Renejs, I think the onus is on you here to do the demonstrating."
I don't see why the onus should be on me. But no problem. . .
- FormerIP: Could you please provide quotes from the scholars you mention which show that they "postulate the non-historicity of Jesus"?
Renejs: Why not just read the Harpur section of the CMT article--right there? It reads: "According to Harpur, in the second or third centuries, the early church created the fictional impression of a literal and historic Jesus and then used forgery and violence to cover up the evidence. Having come to see the scriptures as symbolic allegory of a cosmic truth rather than as inconsistent history, Harpur concludes he has a greater internal connection with the spirit of Christ" (reference citation). If you doubt this is truly Harpur's position, I'm not the person you need to debate. :-) As for Thomas Brodie, he has written regarding Jesus that "He never existed" ("Beyond the Quest of the Historical Jesus", pp. 36, 41, and 198), and: "This shadowed living beauty that we call Jesus Christ is not a specific human being" (ibid. p. 218).
- FormerIP: Could you also provide evidence that they are "serious scholars"?
Huh? You want proof that Harpur (Ph.D, former prof of New Testament, best selling Canadian relgious author) is a "serious scholar"? This is too funny. But, OK again. . . Please check the Tom Harpur page. You'll read that "From 1964 to 1971, Harpur was an assistant professor and then a full professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe, and from 1984 to 1987 he was part-time lecturer on the Theology and Praxis of Mass Media course at the Toronto School of Theology in the University of Toronto." Then in the Journalism section of that article you'll read: "Harpur has also written a number of books on religion and theology, ten of which became Canadian bestsellers and two of which were made into TV series for VisionTV. For a time he had his own TV show, Harpur's Heaven and Hell, and has hosted a variety of radio and television programs on the topic of religion, particularly on VisionTV. He has, over the years, been a frequent commentator on religious news events for most of the Canadian networks, especially CBC. In 1996 his bestseller Life After Death about near-death experiences was turned into a 10-episode TV series hosted by Harpur himself. Harpur's 2004 book The Pagan Christ was named the Canadian non-fiction bestseller of the year by the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail." So, yes, I think we can agree that Harpur is a "serious scholar." As for Fr. Thomas Brodie, you could start by reading what's in the CMT article right above the section we're debating. I provide it here: "Irish Dominican priest and theologian Thomas L. Brodie (born 1943) earned his PhD at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome in 1988. He taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament in the United States, South Africa and Ireland, and is a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick. His bibliography includes scholarly works on subjects such as the Gospel of John, Genesis and the Elijah and Elisha narratives, and his publishers have included Oxford University Press and Sheffield Phoenix Press." For more info, you might read his page (which could use some editing. . . ). Brodie's written about 25 books on the New Testament, and for decades was famous for spending 12+ hours a day at his desk. If he's not a "serious" scholar, then who *is,* pray tell?
- FormerIP: "I don't think the benchmark needs to be particularly high, but John is correct that having a PhD is not enough in itself. Where have they been published? What posts have they held? How has their work been received?"
Right. Please see the above. . . ;-)
- FormerIP: Price, for example, can be counted as a serious scholar, but I'm not sure it has ever been his position that Jesus did not exist.
Glad to hear you calling Price a "serious scholar," since he has two doctorates. The first sentence of the CMT Price section reads: "American New Testament scholar Robert McNair Price (born 1954) questions the historicity of Jesus in a series of books. . ." He's identified himself as a "Jesus mythicist" at least since the year 2000. So, yes, it has (for a long time) been his position that "Jesus did not exist."Renejs (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I really find the absolute reliance on doctorates as being an indicator of someone being "serious" amusing, but believe that the question as to whether something is "serious" as opposed to controversial or sensationalist or something else is a real one. Carl Sagan was notoriously advocating for years the global cooling position, even though at the time the idea had little if any support beyond himself and a few marginal advocates. Also, it really is more than a bit excessive to reproduce comments made earlier in the thread to respond to them, and, honestly, just more or less takes up unnecessary space.And, regrettably, your rather obvious jump to conclusions regarding Price at the end of your comment above is not supported by the evidence. Questioning the historicity of something is not even remotely the same as actively saying something did not exist, and it is honestly hard for me to think anyone would say otherwise. Also, I think it is incumbent on you to perhaps more clearly acquaint yourself with some of our guidelines and policies, particularly including WP:SYNTH (regarding your conclusion about Price), WP:BURDEN (which indicates that the burden is one someone wishing to make changes, not anyone else), and, possibly, any of our other content policies and guidelines with which you may be less than familiar. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Carter: Questioning the historicity of something is not even remotely the same as actively saying something did not exist, and it is honestly hard for me to think anyone would say otherwise.
- Renejs: Maybe I'm too dense to understand this sentence. Would you mind explaining it, and how it weighs on the Grant matter which is the topic of this section?
- Carter: Also, I think it is incumbent on you to perhaps more clearly acquaint yourself with some of our guidelines and policies, particularly including WP:SYNTH (regarding your conclusion about Price)
- Renejs: You're tossing red herrings my way. It was Martijn Meijering who brought up Price! (Please check it out above before throwing further unconsidered accusations my way). Of course, this is a TALK page and I have the right to respond to what Martijn says--and anyone else--without being crucified. And I'm starting to feel like I'm being unfairly ganged up on here because I'm promoting an unpopular position.Renejs (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "questioning" and "asserting", which I thought even most children would be able to understand, although, apparently, you are not. And it is frankly laughable to say that asking you to abide by policies and guidelines is inappapropriate. Once again, I very strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, including those I have linked to, as well as WP:AGF, WP:DE, WP:TE, and WP:IDHT. I regret to say that there is absolutely nothing in the above comment which gives me any reason to believe that you are familiar with them in any way, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a second redirection for you, John: the topic of this section is "Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true"--not my (or anyone else's) Wiki familiarization. . .
- Are you, T.M. Drew, the Cat 7, or anybody here actually claiming that Grant's 1977 statement of "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" is true more than 35 years later? After Harpur, Brodie, Price, and Carrier have ALL declared publicly for the Jesus myth position? Is anyone of you really claiming THAT? John Carter? Martijn? Drew? Cat 7?
- Are any of you really claiming that NOT A SINGLE ONE of those four is a "serious scholar"? Just checking to see where you're coming from. . . Because if you keep reverting, you'll eventually have to put put up the beef. I'm willing to sit back and watch you demonstrate that TODAY "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." Go ahead. . . ;-) I don't think the Wiki administrators want YOU reverting material if you don't have the beef. And the beef is this: 4 serious scholars have now publicly stated that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a person of flesh and blood. That means that Grant's statement of 1977 is NO LONGER TRUE. Simple. Hey, there are a lot more points to tackle in this article. I suggest we move on. . .Renejs (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are free to move on, in which case the article will stay as it is, without your changes. If you continue your edit-warring that is likely to lead to swift sanctions. The way to improve the article is through building consensus on the Talk page, and using conflict resolution procedures if necessary. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am claiming that no scholar has seriously suggested the Christ Myth theory since the early 20th century. Price and Carrier are regarded as fringe theorists, and do not teach at any university. Again, the Christ Myth theory is about as mainstream as young earth creationism is in biology. Of course one can list defenders of it, but any attempt to suggest its plausibility gives undue weight to it.--TMD Talk Page. 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Several serious scholars have suggested it, or consider it a serious possibility: Ellegard, Wells (although he no longer subscribes to this view), Brodie, Dawkins and a few others. It is notable that none of these are historians, and perhaps notable that none of them are theologians or scholars of religion, but all of them are serious scholars. In that sense Grant's statement is false, but that doesn't matter since we do not state he is right, we merely state that that was his view, which is definitely correct. Note that comparing subjects of marginal academic respectability like theology and/or religious studies to a hard science like evolutionary biology is unjustified. The former do not deserve the deference we accord the latter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree completely with any assertion that theology deserves any less deference than sciences like chemistry.--TMD Talk Page. 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Several serious scholars have suggested it, or consider it a serious possibility: Ellegard, Wells (although he no longer subscribes to this view), Brodie, Dawkins and a few others. It is notable that none of these are historians, and perhaps notable that none of them are theologians or scholars of religion, but all of them are serious scholars. In that sense Grant's statement is false, but that doesn't matter since we do not state he is right, we merely state that that was his view, which is definitely correct. Note that comparing subjects of marginal academic respectability like theology and/or religious studies to a hard science like evolutionary biology is unjustified. The former do not deserve the deference we accord the latter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Renejs has asked me to comment here, but I'll be brief and a bit blunt. The main issue seems to be, I'm afraid, that Renejs is not aware of WP:OR. It's not for any of us to say that Grant or anyone else is obsolete. For the record, contemporary scholars make pretty much the same claims. Ehrman says that "virtually" no serious scholar believe in CMT, which is a modification of Grant. I'm also a bit worried that Martijn Meijering continues to beat the same dead horse over and over again by insisting on people like Ellegård (not Ellegard). Ellegård is not a serious scholar in this field, we have been through this time and time again Martijn Meijering and it's quite frankly starting to look like a severe case of refusing to WP:HEAR. It's all the more surprising as Martijn Meijering is in many ways an exemplary and careful user. Some basic Misplaced Pages rules:
- Even in articles dealing with fringe theories like this article, the article should make it clear that the topic is fringe.
- It's not for Misplaced Pages editors to name themselves experts and start drawing conclusions not found in sources.
- An "serious scholar" in a field is a person who holds a PhD in that field, with peer-reviewed publications. It should be obvious (but apparently it isn't) that a professor with a PhD in Japanese history is a good source for Japanese history but that his PhD in Japanese history does not make him an expert on everything under the sun, he's no more an expert of nuclear fusion than any other person. Same thing here, having a PhD in an unrelated field does not make a person an expert on the historicity of Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to have a nasty habit of wikilawyering. I hear you all right, I simply disagree with you and your opinion is not normative. Your personal opinion of Ellegard (I don't feel like typing diacritics everytime) doesn't trump that of the editors of scholarly journals, nor does your anecdotal evidence about what Swedish and Danish scholars think. I think your edits are coloured by a - no doubt unconscious - bias. The reason I bring Ellegard up is because of the claim that no serious scholar at all has proposed this, when in reality it's very few who have. It's notable that he isn't a historian, and I've said so many times, so there is no reason to remind me of that, or to pretend I'm not aware of it. I don't believe Ellegard was an authority on the historicity of Jesus, but he certainly was a serious (indeed distinguished) scholar, and his work on the CMT was discussed in scholarly journals. He doesn't seem to have persuaded many other serious scholars, but that is beside the point. I have no desire to overemphasise Ellegard or the CMT, I'm just annoyed by a constant bias against it, smearing the name of serious scholars and persistent inclination to be overly reverential towards a small group of North American scholars from an increasingly marginal discipline, as if they represented the voice of science. I've also never said the CMT was a widely held opinion, I have stated many times that it has very little scholarly support and is often dismissed in scathing terms. And for the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a believer of the CMT. And pray tell, what "field" concerns itself with the CMT? As for beating a dead horse, why don't you tell that to Bill the Cat, whose only contributions here seem to be saying "fringe!" and copy pasting a long list of scholars who oppose the CMT, something that no one here denies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I agree with you on René's WP:OR, as was probably already clear from my earlier comments. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- If I am "nasty Wikilawyering", it may be because of constant violations of rules. It does get a bit repetitive to have to repeat the same thing over and over again. My opinion is not normative, true enough. But as your opinion seems to be that any person with a PhD is an expert on any subject there is, no matter how unrelated to their area of expertise, the onus is very much on you to back up that rather un-orthodox view. Would you care to cite the Misplaced Pages policy you feel support that view? To the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me), Ellegård never published anything in any ranked scholarly journal nor was his research any discussed in any ranked scholarly journal. An unranked Swedish journal gave Ellegård some space, but followed it up by statements from a number of people, anyone in a field even close to CMT commenting in that journal rejected Ellegård's hypothesis, and in the more than 20 years that have passed, nothing more has been heard of Ellegård or his idea in any scholarly context. This is beyond just fringe, it's well into raving conspiracy theories. Even "serious scholars" can go totally wrong when dabbing in areas they don't know.Jeppiz (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Serious scholars can certainly go wrong in areas outside their expertise. Indeed they can also go totally wrong in their own fields. It's not my view that anyone with a PhD is an expert on everything, nor even a reliable source on his own field. So we agree so far. It is also not my view that Ellegard was right, I merely object to the dismissive characterisation of people like Ellegard as not being serious scholars. If you actually read his theory, I think you'll see it is a serious contribution to the subject. A serious scholar proposed a radical thesis, and ended up not convincing other scholars. It happens all the time, it doesn't mean he wasn't a serious scholar or that his thesis was not a serious piece of scholarly work. It just didn't convince any people. Tough luck for Ellegard. The thing that makes it notable is that it caused a stir in Sweden, getting a lot of publicity in the popular press and a limited amount of attention in scholarly publications. Another thing that makes it notable is that Ellegard is one of very few serious CMT proponents (lots of cranks though). This makes it notable in the context of this page, the page on the Historicity of Jesus, and perhaps a few others, but not on pages about NT scholarship in general. There is no suggestion that Ellegard is a prominent NT scholar, or even a NT scholar at all. I'm not sufficiently familiar with journal ranking systems to say anything about the rankings of the publications in question, but I see no reason not to regard them as serious publications. If you want to disqualify them, I'd like to see some evidence and some Misplaced Pages policy that supports your position. You can't just invent your own criteria to dismiss people who say things you don't like (like Ellegard) or which might embarrass you or NT scholarship (like Akenson or Gary Habermas, each in their radically different ways). Anyway, my point is that we should report the controversy as it is, and not add pejorative qualifications of our own. As it happens, the controversy is very lop-sided already, so I don't understand why anyone still wants to pile on criticism. Saying the CMT has very little scholarly support and is routinely dismissed in scathing terms by serious scholars is fair and objective. Saying no serious scholar has proposed it is partisan sniping. That's all I'm saying. Do you disagree with that? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- We agree on a number of things. I also think saying "no serious scholar" is wrong, and has never suggested it. While I think Price, for instance, is fringe (in the meaning "tiny minority", nothing pejorative), I think he's a serious scholar. I also agree we should not add pejorative qualifications on our own, but please keep in mind we should add no qualifications whatsoever. By calling Ellegård a "serious scholar", you add such a qualification. What is more, every reader who reads it will of course think that Ellegård was a serious scholar of the field in question, which isn't the case. "Serious scholar" isn't a title. My academic record is comparable to Ellegård's, but that does not make me an expert on this field nor on any other field outside my area of competence. The same applies to Ellegård and to any other scholar. Pointing out that somebody is a "serious scholar" in a field completely unrelated to their scholarship is misleading. Can I also say, as a Swede, that I'm a bit surprised by your claim that Ellegård caused a stir in Sweden and got lots of publicity in Swedish media. Even though I read the four major Swedish newspapers daily and have done so for close to 30 years, in addition to watching the Swedish news, I had never even heard of Ellegård before you dug him up. That's not to say there cannot have been an article sometimes, but the "stir" and "lot of publicity in the popular press" would seem to be your own additions, just like the "serious scholar" epithet.Jeppiz (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for that clarification. I agree we shouldn't explicitly bestow the epithet serious scholar on Ellegard. Just as we shouldn't engage in partisan sniping, we shouldn't engage in handing out praise either. I merely meant we shouldn't say that no serious scholar has proposed the CMT. It appears we agree more than I thought! We could, and perhaps should, state that several scholars have dismissed the CMT as mainly the work of unserious scholars.
- I take note of your report that Ellegard isn't all that well-known in Sweden. My stir comment was based on something I read, not my own interpretation, but I don't recall exactly where. I could try to dig it up, but I don't think it matters all that much. In any event, these were just talk page comments, I'm not proposing we add the word stir to the article itself, just explaining why I believe Ellegard's inclusion in the article is justified. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- We agree on a number of things. I also think saying "no serious scholar" is wrong, and has never suggested it. While I think Price, for instance, is fringe (in the meaning "tiny minority", nothing pejorative), I think he's a serious scholar. I also agree we should not add pejorative qualifications on our own, but please keep in mind we should add no qualifications whatsoever. By calling Ellegård a "serious scholar", you add such a qualification. What is more, every reader who reads it will of course think that Ellegård was a serious scholar of the field in question, which isn't the case. "Serious scholar" isn't a title. My academic record is comparable to Ellegård's, but that does not make me an expert on this field nor on any other field outside my area of competence. The same applies to Ellegård and to any other scholar. Pointing out that somebody is a "serious scholar" in a field completely unrelated to their scholarship is misleading. Can I also say, as a Swede, that I'm a bit surprised by your claim that Ellegård caused a stir in Sweden and got lots of publicity in Swedish media. Even though I read the four major Swedish newspapers daily and have done so for close to 30 years, in addition to watching the Swedish news, I had never even heard of Ellegård before you dug him up. That's not to say there cannot have been an article sometimes, but the "stir" and "lot of publicity in the popular press" would seem to be your own additions, just like the "serious scholar" epithet.Jeppiz (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Serious scholars can certainly go wrong in areas outside their expertise. Indeed they can also go totally wrong in their own fields. It's not my view that anyone with a PhD is an expert on everything, nor even a reliable source on his own field. So we agree so far. It is also not my view that Ellegard was right, I merely object to the dismissive characterisation of people like Ellegard as not being serious scholars. If you actually read his theory, I think you'll see it is a serious contribution to the subject. A serious scholar proposed a radical thesis, and ended up not convincing other scholars. It happens all the time, it doesn't mean he wasn't a serious scholar or that his thesis was not a serious piece of scholarly work. It just didn't convince any people. Tough luck for Ellegard. The thing that makes it notable is that it caused a stir in Sweden, getting a lot of publicity in the popular press and a limited amount of attention in scholarly publications. Another thing that makes it notable is that Ellegard is one of very few serious CMT proponents (lots of cranks though). This makes it notable in the context of this page, the page on the Historicity of Jesus, and perhaps a few others, but not on pages about NT scholarship in general. There is no suggestion that Ellegard is a prominent NT scholar, or even a NT scholar at all. I'm not sufficiently familiar with journal ranking systems to say anything about the rankings of the publications in question, but I see no reason not to regard them as serious publications. If you want to disqualify them, I'd like to see some evidence and some Misplaced Pages policy that supports your position. You can't just invent your own criteria to dismiss people who say things you don't like (like Ellegard) or which might embarrass you or NT scholarship (like Akenson or Gary Habermas, each in their radically different ways). Anyway, my point is that we should report the controversy as it is, and not add pejorative qualifications of our own. As it happens, the controversy is very lop-sided already, so I don't understand why anyone still wants to pile on criticism. Saying the CMT has very little scholarly support and is routinely dismissed in scathing terms by serious scholars is fair and objective. Saying no serious scholar has proposed it is partisan sniping. That's all I'm saying. Do you disagree with that? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- If I am "nasty Wikilawyering", it may be because of constant violations of rules. It does get a bit repetitive to have to repeat the same thing over and over again. My opinion is not normative, true enough. But as your opinion seems to be that any person with a PhD is an expert on any subject there is, no matter how unrelated to their area of expertise, the onus is very much on you to back up that rather un-orthodox view. Would you care to cite the Misplaced Pages policy you feel support that view? To the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me), Ellegård never published anything in any ranked scholarly journal nor was his research any discussed in any ranked scholarly journal. An unranked Swedish journal gave Ellegård some space, but followed it up by statements from a number of people, anyone in a field even close to CMT commenting in that journal rejected Ellegård's hypothesis, and in the more than 20 years that have passed, nothing more has been heard of Ellegård or his idea in any scholarly context. This is beyond just fringe, it's well into raving conspiracy theories. Even "serious scholars" can go totally wrong when dabbing in areas they don't know.Jeppiz (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting discussion, and I seem to detect some movement. With surprise I find both Martijn and Jeppiz in agreement with me on the specific issue at hand: that Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is "wrong." In fact, that's ALL I'm saying here. Because Grant's 1977 statement is now wrong, it has no place in this 2015 article. I feel no choice but to continue to revert to the accepted limit of 3x per day until we either hash this out or resort to arbitration on this issue which is very clear to me.Renejs (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am a very irregular reader of this page. Now I just feel like adding a remark, surely not planning to fight here for anything personally. I always felt that closing this article with this quote by Grant from 1977 is very inappropriate, already from a simple view of chronology. I fully understand people like Renejs who try to make the article more sensible (at least) in this respect.
I can add that as a wikipedia reader I would think that Grant had himself carefully explored the arguments of so called mythicists (until his time, which is almost forty years ago) and had demonstrated that their authors violate the standard scholarly methods or so ... But this impression seems misleading, as I judge from the below quote by Doherty (which I take from http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut1.htm).
Before giving the quote, I stress that I certainly do not suggest that the wiki-article should contain this quote by Doherty; I just stress that if somebody thinks that the quote by Grant belongs in the article, then (s)he should give enough context so that the reader is not mislead.
But the conviction continues that this work of refutation has long since been completed and scarcely needs revisiting.
A typical example is historian Michael Grant, who in Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (1977), devotes a few paragraphs to the question in an Appendix. There , he says:
“To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”
One will note that Grant’s statement about answering and annihilating, and the remark about serious scholars, are in quotes, and are in fact the opinions of previous writers. Clearly, Grant himself has not undertaken his own ‘answer’ to mythicists. Are those quoted writers themselves scholars who have undertaken such a task? In fact, they are not. One referenced writer, Rodney Dunkerley, in his Beyond the Gospels (1957, p.12), devotes a single paragraph to the “fantastic notion” that Jesus did not actually live; its exponents, he says, “have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars,” but since he declares it “impossible to summarize those scholars’ case here,” he is not the source of Grant’s conviction. Nor can that be Oskar Betz, from whose What Do We Know About Jesus? (1968, p.9) Grant takes his second quote. Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.” This ignores many serious presentations of that very idea since Bousset, and evidently relies on defining “serious” as excluding anyone who would dare to undertake such a misguided task.
I wish good luck to all editors who try to give this article an impartial and sensible form.Jelamkorj (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Mid-importance Mythology articles
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees