Misplaced Pages

Lede getting very large

Wdford has been trimming the lede, which is a good thing. It might be useful to salvage some of the stuff that was deleted by moving it to a separate section in the main body of the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If the lede needs trimming, then start with this part:

Critics of the theory, including Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists who believe that the gospels are reliable records of a historical Jesus, maintain that the proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.

I don't know who put this in but it makes it sound that only biased people (Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists) are the ones who are critical of this almost universally rejected theory. It is NOT only such people who "maintain" that the theory is only held by a tiny minority. It is a FACT that that it is almost universally rejected, and frequently rejected in the harshest terms. The militant atheist/agnostics never cease to amaze me in their attempts to legitimize this fringe theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the intro is long, and that I contributed to the problem with the new words about critics, but there is also an argument that there is a lot of repetition in that paragraph, and at least some should be moved to the criticism section at the bottom. This is, after all, an article about CMT, as there are already any number of wiki articles on the historicity of Jesus. Starting the third paragraph in an introduction with the statement "Proponents constitute a tiny minority," while I concede is true, is simply jarring to a reader, as it would be equally jarring to give CMT such prominence in a wiki article on the historical Jesus. Although footnoted, I felt that statement needed attribution of who says so. My solution noted that critics "included" fundamentalists, literalists and apologists (not that they are the only ones) and then offered links to explain those terms. Radath (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

After my previous post, I was inspired by Bill the Cat's model for consensus on his user page, so as he suggested, I am proposing a new paragraph about biblical scholarship that flows better within the page and is which is shorter with fewer repetitive quotes. I really think the baptism and crucifixion sentence is just too detailed for the introduction and would be better in the criticism section. Ironically, a quick reading of that sentence may support that Jesus lived (since most scholars agree), but to me it gives credence to CMT (if scholars can agree on only two events in all the gospels, perhaps none of it is true). In the spirit of NPOV, I re-inserted Ehrman's religious agnosticism which I believe gives him more credibility for the atheists and agnostics likely to read this article. I'm interested in all your thoughts and will not implement any of these suggestions before Thursday noon UTC:

Current: Proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship. Even though a strong consensus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory, scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. For example, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Proposed: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived These scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. For example, although New Testament expert and skeptical agnostic Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed,, he also believes that Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Radath (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A big problem that plagues this article is that some editors understand the “Christ myth theory” to mean that Jesus did not exist at all, and they then happily shoot that down with “almost all scholars agree”. This usually results in wording that reads as if the gospel fables are all true. Other editors then argue that this is bunk, and bring their own hordes of sources that profess that the gospel stories are fictional/mythical. In order to avoid this constant argument, the largely-successful compromise has been to state openly in the lead that a Jesus-type person probably did exist, but that most of what the gospels say about him is untrue, and that all we can believe with any confidence is that Jesus was baptised and later crucified. I would also suggest we delete the two quotes from the lead. I would also prefer that we don’t wikilink the baptism and the crucifixion to the Bible stories, as although we have some confidence that these events took place, the gospel records thereof are full of extra detail which is surely false – e.g. the tombs opened and the dead rose up etc. I agree with the intention of the proposal above, but would suggest that we reword it to read instead:

Proposal 2: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Wdford (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add back a wikilink to the historical criticism article. Is classical biblical scholarship a commonly used term? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but I suspect the issue is based on the "Christian scholars vs secular scholars" debate. Personally I have no objection to your suggestion. Wdford (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account.

I propose the following rewrite of the entire lead section:

Proposal 3:The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community.

The idea was developed and popularised in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. Bauer's argument was that the New Testament is of no historical value, that the failure of ancient non-Christian writers of the 1st century to mention Jesus shows that he did not exist, and that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical in its beginnings. In recent years there has been more widespread debate on the subject. New Testament scholar Tom Harpur (a former Anglican priest) believes in a spiritual Christ, but believes that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and New Atheism activist Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ Myth Theory, that "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history," and that "the evidence (Jesus) existed is surprisingly shaky." Others argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Please share your suggestions? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this, Wdford. I will be proposing a few suggestions to your version later tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal. I admit it is a little longer than Wdford's, but I've tried to include useful summaries (including internal wikilinks where possible) and NPOV. Since there are a number of new ideas, I will wait until Friday noon UTC before posting to allow time to make improvements: Radath (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory and that "reputable biblical scholars do not regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history." Although Dawkins wrote in 2006 that "Jesus probably existed," he added in 2012 "the evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky." New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived. Many scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic who has written about the questionable accuracy and authorships of the gospels, states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies offers an arguably more balanced approach. Like many scholars, he question the historicity of the gospels and tends to believe there was a real Jesus, but makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and that there is room for scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Still much too long. Do we need to mention all these individuals by name in the lede? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting quotes in the lead. If we must mention them by name at all then surely we can summarize this by saying that opinions vary from xx who says the gospels are inerrant, through yy who says Jesus lived but wasn't as per the Bible, to zz who said Jesus never lived in the flesh, to ab who says the whole thing is a big fraud by the church? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account. Radath (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's work from this:

Proposal 5: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although many scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical. New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory, that reputable biblical scholars do not regard the Bible as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and that the evidence that Jesus existed is “surprisingly shaky." New Testament scholar and agnostic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states that virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus existed, but he personally believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies believes there was a real Jesus, but questions the historicity of the gospels and makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth.

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the stuff from "the only two events" onwards can be moved to the body of the text. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A shortened version without names or quotes for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 6: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and almost all scholars of antiquity that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain theologians and scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Made a slight copy edit to the last proposal above, but otherwise support it, although the first paragraph might be longer, if someone could figure out what exactly what might be included in an expanded first paragraph. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by John Carter, I made the first paragraph slightly longer by adding back a partial sentence from Wdford's version (in recent years...). The revived text contains internal links to the 21st century authors and documentaries so readers don't have to slog through the early writings. I also added a couple of commas, added a link to atheists and slightly changed the wording in the last sentence. Any other suggestions? Radath (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the "almost all scholars of antiquity" remark, as I believe it to be propaganda coming from the HJ research side. But since this there's already a POV tag and since we're dealing with a separate problem (length of the lede) here, for now it's fine. I'd avoid the use of the word theologians here, biblical scholars is generally more appropriate. The words are not synonymous. Anyway, I think the latest proposal is good enough to go into the article. We can always tweak it from there. There's no need to have a prior discussion on talk for every little change, because otherwise we'll soon be dealing with an overly long section discussing how to compress an overly long lede... Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated version below: Thanks for your comments, Martijn. I was paraphrasing Ehrman (current wording on page = New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed). I can also remove the word "theologian" but was referring to Philip R. Davies and assumed he was. Should I post to the main page or wait for further suggestions? Radath (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 7: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

A few final tweaks:

Proposal 8: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ. However New Testament experts differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I like prop 8. Upload it. Good work, by the way. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the statement or how the sources support it, "that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ". The sources are saying that there is a consensus among the relevant scholars that Jesus existed, not that he "may" have been the inspiration for Christ, whatever that means. If the concern is that people will misinterpret the attributed claim that "Jesus existed" with the claim that "Jesus existed and the Gospels accurately reflect his life", it should simply be stated that the scholarly consensus is also that the Gospels do not accurately reflect his life. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few reservations about #8. While I like the idea of a longer first paragraph, I think the existing statement that this is only about the question of the historical existence of Jesus to be maybe an overstatement. At least some of the sources seem to indicate that they think a Jesus may have existed, but that the "Christ" elements of the story as we have it today are "mythic". That particular position doesn't seem to get the same degree of attention in this draft. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A few more final tweaks - cleaned up even further:

Proposal 9: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Bible did not exist, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus never existed in any sense. However, there is a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus existed, although they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. I wouldn't try to change it (except for maybe a comma after "However"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in brevity, but I think it has been stripped a litte too much. I will weigh in later this evening. I promised not to upload until 12:00 Friday UTC so I hope you extend me the same courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For the last four days, I have been proposing and re-proposing changes to the introduction, and have incorporated every suggestion from Wdford, Martijn Meijeri, John Carter, and others (removing names, removing quotes, incorporating words desired by CMT opponents, etc) even when I didn't agree. By the time we got to proposal 7, I think we had reached a nice compromise and NPOV, with special features such as direct internal links to contemporary authors and documentaries in sentence 2, as well as a concluding sentence suggesting further research and debate. By the end of proposal 6, Martijn was even suggesting it was good enough to post. So here is proposal 10 which is similar to 7, but it points out that CMT is controversial and also addresses the concern by Atethnekos that I did not adequately describe Hitchens's view in paragraph 2. Can I post? Radath (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 10: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. '

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

We need to clarify a bit further that the argument is not about "A Jesus" but rather is about "The Gospel Jesus". I therefore propose the following compromise:

Proposal 11: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

I'm not sure who wrote Proposal 11 as it was unsigned, but I agree that I can better explain the first school of thought shared by Dawkins, Hitchens, Thompson and others (maybe even Ehrman) that the Gospels are inaccurate, inconsistent, based on myths and essentially not true, but they cannot say with certainty that there was not a man named Jesus whose life was mythologized many decades after his death. As well, for the sake of brevity and NPOV, I can compromise further and shorten the sentence about further research and debate. Now we are past the time I said I would post, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 12: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Now we are past the time I said I would post a couple days ago, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. :) John Carter (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted Proposal 11 - sorry for missing out the signature. I am happy with Proposal 12 - it seems everything important has been covered. Wdford (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the new intro which is considerably shorter than the old version (-1435). Thanks to everyone who contributed and compromised. I'm always amazed when text that is "written by committee" turns out so clear. Radath (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a similar note, if someone has some time, they could clean up the footnotes which are quite inconsistent. As well, we could make the top of the page shorter by removing the dispute tag (this page is the result of much compromise from both sides) and the note about comparative mythology (which contradicts the previous sentence which includes a link to Christianty and comparative mythology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tags would generally require the consensus of the person who placed them, and I don't know who that was or whether they are still active. However, I would myself also support the removal of the tags at this time, to help establish some degree of consensus for the removal of the tag. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I was the last person to reinsert the tag, and I've removed it because of the recent changes. If someone feels the article is still biased (or has now become biased), he/she is free to reinsert the tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the POV tag, Martijn. That is great news. Do you know if we can also remove the note "Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology" or is it important. Radath (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand the difference - is there really any value in having this note? Wdford (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think it has something to do with merely ahistorical vs being derived from pagan myths. Price does believe the latter, I'm not sure about other CMT proponents. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then clarify this distinction in the Price sub-section, rather than in the heading? Wdford (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So we can remove the note? Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, but what's the point of "including some atheists" before "believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine"? It would seem more remarkable that some atheists "concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it that way as I read recently (perhaps from Ehrman) that most atheists (including Dawkins and Hitchens) concede that Jesus may have lived, and saying "some" was true and safer. Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the definition anymore: "is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed". This seems to be saying that mythicism is just denying that the gospels are true. That's just the standard view of historians, not mythicism. Mythicists are saying that all the accounts about Jesus fail to refer to any person at all, because that person never existed. And then again: "Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths." Pretty much every historian except for some fundamentalists who don't employ an actual historical method believe that some biblical accounts are based on myths (in the sense of "legends" or "fictions"); that's not mythicism, just the mainstream. -Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Athenekos has a point. I think most historians of all sort tend to say that miracles of all sorts lie outside their area of expertise, and tend to leave questions regarding them to others, like scientists, theologians, and others, although some would propose ways in which purported miracles could occur in a more natural way. I think, and I hope others correct me if I'm wrong, the essential points of the purported history which are generally counted as "mythic" are those which relate to Jesus's possibly establishing a church, seeing himself as divinely directed, and certainly the idea that he was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead, among others. The "Jesus myth theory," that the individual himself never existed in a way even remotely resembling the religious accounts, is somewhat of a separate matter, but probably best included in this article anyway. Maybe it would be useful to somewhere in the lead indicate exactly which aspects are most frequently described as "mythic" in this sense. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The current definition (... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community) has been in the first sentence for very a long time. Now that Athenekos has pointed it out, defined that way, I suppose someone could call Ehrman and most mainstream scholars "mythicists" which is obviously not the case. The definition on the Jesus in comparative mythology page (The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the historical existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.) is clearer, isn't all that different, and has two footnotes (Theissen and Van Voorst). That article focuses on Strauss (who incidentally believed that Jesus lived, but created an uproar simply by suggesting that Jesus really didn't perform miracles) calling him "the founder of Christ myth theory". Is it possible that CMT originally referred anyone who questioned the historical accuracy of the gosepels (what were once fringe theories are now mainstream)? There is arguably a clearer definition in the Tom Harpur article (Christ myth theory, the idea that Jesus did not exist but is a fictional or mythological figure). We might want to adapt ours to simply say ( ...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure in history) which is something that Hitchens would say but Ehrman wouldn't. Radath (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean it's something to consider. But has it been the sentence for a long time? When did it change? I just went back a few months and sampled, and everything had just "...proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community." or thereabout e.g. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a reasonable question there, and I wish I knew how to answer it, other than, perhaps, repeating something I think Akhilleus said earlier , Ehrman(?) was at that time expected to have a new book on this topic out shortly, and as a form of neutral overview whatever definition(s) it uses might be the best to go by. Anyone know if that book is out yet, or what it says? John Carter (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The only book that Ehrman has on mythicism is Did Jesus Exist? (2012); I don't believe he has any plans to write another. Ehrman defines mythicism in there as: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." (p. 12, Harper ebook version) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Akhilleos referred to the recent book by Ehrman and the forthcoming book by Casey in archive 43, when there was discussion about the relationship of Jesus to various preexisting mythic traditions. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue of the definition is what has plagued this article since forever. There is a clear distinction between "Jesus the Jewish teacher and trouble-maker" vs "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame". Many scholars and wiki-editors alike hold the simple view that "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame" was a myth/fable/fiction/lie/whatever, and therefore the Christ Myth Theory is actually the current mainstream scholarly consensus. However other authors and wiki-editors hold instead that the Christ Myth Theory actually states that "nobody named Jesus ever lived in any form ever", and therefore by their definition the Christ Myth Theory is fringe. Whichever group controls the definition on the day, the other side will determinedly put in their conflicting views, and thus they have argued past each other for years. The solution seems to be for Misplaced Pages to avoid taking a stance on the matter of the definition, as there is no consensus here from reliable sources, and instead to cover all the bases equally and fairly. So we now have a lead section that says "most scholars agree that there was a real guy named Jesus who was executed for some reason, but the Jesus of Nazareth as per the gospels is not considered to be a true story." It seems to be working so far. Wdford (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summery of the problems the definition has had over the years. A long time ago in this article's history there was an effort to present seemingly every idea that had been called Christ myth or one of it many synonyms in the last 100 years. The result as one might expect was a totally dysfunctional lede and an even more dysfunctional article.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine leaving it as it is. The casual reader won't notice any ambiguity until they get to the second paragraph where they will get a sample of the range of ideas referenced in the Jesus in comparative mythology definition. Radath (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, there didn't' seem to be concerns about removing the line at the top (Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology). I have removed as it appears to be an opinion without citations that contradicts the previous note about Jesus in comparative mythology. If anyone feels strongly it should be there, they can undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of CMT

Starting a new subsection because the length issue has been dealt with.

Do we have really any authors who define the CMT as anything that disputes the Jesus-as-Saviour known from the gospels? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily know of. I guess one question there is regarding the line of division between this article and the well-developed Historicity of Jesus article. There is a reasonable question of exactly how to define the differentiation between the content of the two articles, I suppose, and possibly other articles as well, and would definitely welcome some sort of discussion of which material to put in which article, and potentially other related articles as well. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly most authors dispute the supernatural elements in the gospels - the virgin birth, the Three Wise Men and their Star, the massacre of babies, the miracles, the resurrection and the ascension. Even the trials are disputed. The "consensus" allows that a Jesus-type person existed, but not that he was a divine miracle-worker who rose from the dead. We need to see a consensus definition from reliable sources, which after all these years does not seem to exist. Therefore I feel we should persist as is. There is clearly an overlap with the Historical Jesus article, but I think we have dealt with that adequately on both articles already - perhaps just a bit of tweaking is required? Wdford (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The authors I know best don't really use the words CMT, they all just agree that the New Testament cannot be used as historical proof, but their views differ after that (Dawkins says he probably existed, Hitchens concedes some charasmtic rabbi might have existed, Harpur believes he didn't exist, and Thompson concludes it doesn't matter if he existed or not). Radath (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That last point raises the question of the differentiation of the Christ myth, that Jesus was not the anticipated Messiah but rather someone who had those beliefs imposed on him apparently postmortem with stories created to justify it, and the Jesus myth, that even the basic, everyday, activities of the Jesus of the Christian story was artificial or mythic. This page would seem to me, logically, to be the best place to put content relating to the Jesus myth as well, and, maybe, including it as a separate subsection might be best, to the extent that some sort of definition of Jesus myth might be possible as well. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to differentiate between the two complete separate arguments: 1) there was a Jesus of Nazareth physical person, but his reported miracles and the works of God associated with him are myths (Historical Jesus) and 2) not only are the supernatural happenings bunk, but that there wasn't even a physical person named Jesus (CMT). I think Wiki does a good job of making that differentiation. Those of us who watch both pages just need to make sure there is a clear line between the two and that people from outside Wiki who try to add things into the wrong page are directed to the other page as necessary. Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I vaguely remember a previous discussion about whether the article should be called the "Christ Myth Theory" or the "Jesus Myth Theory". We settled on the Christ Myth Theory for a reason - namely that there is very little RS support for a Jesus Myth Theory. However we do already state clearly in the lead that while its broadly accepted that a Jesus existed, only two elements of the gospel story are generally accepted, (and even then the bulk of the detail thereon in the gospels is unsupported). The current interpretation is that Jesus may have existed, but he wasn't the Christ - and this position seems to have lot of RS support. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I imagine if you search through the archive you could find the actual material but it still wouldn't change the impression that not everyone using the term CMT or its equivalent is on the same page...which is likely where some of the confusion is coming from. Another possibility is we have a changing definition can what was called CMT would not qualify as such today.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I get the same feeling. If the sources use the term CMT with different meanings, then we should say so explicitly. If they don't, then this article should restrict itself to describing the theory that there was no historical Jesus at all, not just that the miracles etc are considered mythical accretions onto a historical figure. What counts here is how RS use the term, not whether they agree with it. My impression is that most writers use the CMT in the stronger sense, i.e. what Wdford calls the JMT, though they don't call it that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is assuming you can figure out what the RS says as was true with Michael Grant regarding the Christ Myth theory as a modern form of Docetism...as far as I can tell no one actually agreed on what point he was making there. Then you have people like Doherty saying that Christ Myth theory is that the Gospel Jesus didn't exist citing Wells then current Jesus Myth (1999) as an example...which given Wells was accepting a flesh and blood Jesus being behind the Gospel account causes even more confusion especially when you have RS like Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd basically saying the same thing. Throw in a lot of arguing about what some RS are even saying (with people reading things into the source that simply are not there) and you have a mess (look through the archive for examples of that).--67.42.65.212 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new "Key arguments" section

Since I started contributing to the article on January 24, I have made approximately 80 out of the last 100 edits, including new sections on Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Alvin Boyd Kuhn (none of whom were even mentioned in the article), Tom Harpur, Thomas L. Thompson, David Strauss (who were all just briefly mentioned in other sections) and the list of Documentaries. I worked and compromised with many of you in the creation of the new intro paragraphs, and elsewhere I have created supplementary information with new wiki articles on The Pagan Christ, Alvin Boyd Kuhn and K.L. Noll. Now I am suggesting this article needs a short summary of the three-point argument using NPOV so readers do not have to dig lthrough the 25 sub-sections on various authors. We can also shorten the lede introduction by removing the three arguments in the opening paragraph. Here is my proposal that I hope to post by noon UTC tomorrow for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

KEY ARGUMENTS PROPOSAL 1: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their criticisms are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown individuals with their own agendas. They say the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:'

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) is inconsistent with his other writings, may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus in Greco-Roman, Jewish and Islamic sources than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

I welcome all your suggestions and edits on this fine Sunday, but I think we should keep this summary brief. Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Point 3 is a good summation but there are a few hiccups such as the whole pagan origin of Virgin birth on December 25 date; modern scholarship has shown that the date was a very late comer (4th century) to the Jesus story in an effort to compete with the pagan Sol Invictus holiday. Before that there was much debate regarding when Jesus was born. Tertullian and Hippolytus favored March 25; Clement favored May 20, some were pointing to January 6 (ironically the birthday of Osiris), and still others pointed to the Essenes whose couples had sex in December so their child would be born September (the holy month of Atonement). One of the calmer theories is that "virgin birth" was that time's equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth--never meant to be taken literally but as an short hand for "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual" which would fit with why Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great were said to be born of virgins.

Also it doesn't address people like Remsburg who said Jesus most likely existed but most (if not all) of the Gospels story came from older myths.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken, but this brief summary is not meant to address every point or to convince scholars of CMT. It's written for the average reader who may not have heard any of these arguments (including points on which most scholars agree) and who might even assume that traditions like December 25th appear in the Bible. Radath (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good section, and my compliments. My only real reservation is to the section title "Summary". "History of the theory", "Development of the theory," something like that. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, John Carter. How about "Key Arguments" or "Main Arguments". That will make it easy if we want to create an internal wiki link from the introduction or one of the other sections. Radath (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Both are good. although "Key" might be preferable to "Main", as "Main" could be argued to mean "Most Frequent," and it might be that some of the worse or less effective arguments are most frequently used. If they are, there might be disputes about the amount of weight to give them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "Key". Done. Radath (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree and support, although we would need to include lots of references to avoid accusation of WP:OR. BTW I have encountered in my reading an explanation that "virgin births" were not all that unusual in those days. Apparently it simply meant that the mother was unmarried at the time of the birth, meaning the child was illegitimate and the mother (most likely a young girl) had probably been raped. Apparently the word translated here as "virgin" actually just means "unmarried" (maiden), and that to denote a girl who was actually a virgin in the sexual sense they used a completely different word. Interesting, yes? Wdford (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to wait for overall reaction before adding citations. I can provide basic references for a good part (mostly from Harpur's Pagan Christ) and will add those in tonight. with plans to post in the morning. For some statements (especially the myth critics sentences), I will likely add "citation needed", and perhaps you and other contributors can add more references where neede as I will be away for a few days. Radath (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the updated version with footnotes. I realize that it could use more citations, but I'm hoping others can contribute their wealth of knowledge.

KEY ARGUMENTS PROPOSAL 2: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their counter-arguments are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown scribes with their own agendas. They often argue the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

Anyone have any suggestions or further footnotes? Radath (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As there were no negative comments, I posted the new section. Additional citations welcome. I hope that people don't start making this section too long as it is meant to be a brief summary. Radath (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014

Radath - Do you have other sources to back up especially the first sentence of the 3rd para? Harpur's book which espouses connections to either Horus or Osirus are based on the ramblings of the fool Gerald Massey who has been 100% discredited. Since I don't have access to it I'm wondering what Harpur says which other god/holy man was born from a virgin on Dec 25th and was announced by a star in the east with three wise men and was crucified and resurrected (Osiris doesn't count on this last one as he was essentially turned into a pieced together zombie - which is not even close to being bodily resurrected). I agree with the first part of the 2nd sentence of that para because the Catholic Church obviously co-opted several pagan holidays to use as Christian celebration days (although this really has nothing to do with whether Jesus was an actual person or not). However, the 2nd part does not make sense to me. Where in the NT does it say that Jesus was Joshua? Simply because they have similar names? The final sentence is fine.

I'm really not asking you defend the source or trying to create an argument, but you rely heavily on Harpur and if he is going to lean on Massey's ridiculous "scholarship" this leads me to question the whole source. Alot of them are from a Christian perspective, but the reviews/criticsms of this book are many and stinging. Ckruschke (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your comments, Ckruschke Unfortunately I've loaned out my copy of The Pagan Christ. Until I get it back, I have changed the wording to make sure its clear that Horus et. al are "claims". As for the second sentence, even the previous version did not say that any of these figures had ALL these traits (even though that might be suggested in the movies Religulous and Zeitgeist). I have also placed "citation needed" tags until I (or one of you) have time to do the research. Here is the newest live version:

Final Paragraph Proposal 3 Myth proponents claim that many stories of Jesus are at least partially similar to certain myths about sun gods and other pagan leaders such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddha, Krishna and others. Some mythological writings about these figures pre-date Jesus by up to 4000 years and can include themes such as virgin birth, December 25th birth, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell, or resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories about figures like Elijah and Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

As I noted earlier in the week, this section is simply meant as a quick NPOV summary of what is said elsewhere on the page. Even if Harpur cited Kuhn, Kuhn cited Massey, and Massey is proven wrong, the fact they all had those beliefs is still attributable in the context of beliefs. I even noted in the final sentence that critics argue that these claims are without historical basis. With that said, there are other scholars like Thomas L. Thompson, Siegfried Morenz and Erik Hornung who note the similarities between Christianity and ancient Egyptian religions. As for Yeshua, the Joshua wiki page suggests a connection with Jesus beyond their shared name. I think its safe to assume that Christ myth proponents will not agree on every point or get every fact right, and neither will the scholars or myth opponents. -Radath (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I've devoted a lot of time to improving this article over the last few weeks. Anyone want to volunteer to research the proper citations, especially for the last paragraph in the new section? Radath (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Radath - Thank you for your response, good-natured collaboration, and willingness to make adjustments in your own work. I completely understand the reason for the section and support it - I wish more pages had up-front summations of the germain points (as often times, ledes are sorely lacking). Also realize its also designed to be an all-encompasing, non-NPOV tone. I just have major issues with Massey's work in general and some of his assertions (Dec 25th, virgin birth, crucifixion, etc) specifically as I've never found corroborating evidence for these assertions OUTSIDE of authors who are clearly citing Massey. I'm not bagging on Massey simply because I'm a Christian - I bagging on Massey because his scholarship is akin to outright fantasy. If he was a Christian author who made up "facts" like this SUPPORTING the Bible, he'd be laughed out of the room. Appreciate your work - just trying to give you another perspective that hopefully helps. Feel free to send me a message on my Talk page if you'd like help. Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your kind words, Ckruschke. I think it best when we work together to make this the best article we can, no matter which side of the debate we sit, and to always avoid attacks. With that said, did you mean to say that the new key arguments section has a "non-POV tone"? As I generally do, I tried my best to ensure a neutral tone. For example, I presented the three arguments as assertions rather than facts, and at the end of each of the three short paragraphs, I included a sentence which summarized the criticism against that argument (even though I could also argue flaws in those counter-arguments). By the way, I've started to gather citations for the third argument about pagan myths, but its a big task to go through each of the authors over the last 250 years to decide who said what. It would be really helpful if someone could let me know of a book that sums up all (or most) of the statements which require citations, including an example of a myth critic for the final sentence. Radath (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops - I meant to say "Also realize its also designed to be an all-encompasing, NPOV tone." Sorry for the confusion.

I know of no source book corroborating or even summing up the Jesus myth points that you've flagged. Which is part of my point - it appears to me that many of the arguments/points that Massey makes were created in Massey's mind. Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Carl Jung linked Jesus with Osiris – see ]. Robert Price apparently made the pagan comparison as well – see ] For some other sources see perhaps , , , . Wdford (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess I should disclose that I've been corresponding with Tom Harpur the last few weeks. Initially I contacted him to discuss the use of his photo and to ensure the accuracy of things I have written about him. He has been very gracious with his time, and has suggested some additions including the new section on Jacob Alexander which he asked me to post. I asked him about the references for paragraph 3, and this was his response:

I could suggest that for the first one (list of deities), you could include: William Benjamin Smith (Der Vorchristliche Jesus – The Pre-Christian Jesus), Northrop Frye (The Great Code), Martin Luther King (The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity) and Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth, or any of his books). For the second one (list of similarities), you could use Jacob Alexander (Atman – A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans), and Joseph Warschauer (The Historical Life of Jesus). As well, see the bibliography in Freke and Gandy's book (The Jesus Mysteries). For the third, since this is a position of the critics I don't have a citation.The Jews profess to avoid anything pagan, but in actual fact they did not.

As I don't have the time to read all those books, I have instead found some citations of authors who I know to have made specific claims (e.g., Massey= Horus, Buddha=Borg, Mithras and others=Drew). For the list of similarities, these claims and more were made by Graves. I have removed the reference to Jews in the last sentence as Harpur suggested, but I'm assuming that Ehrman must have made this claim that all the pagan similarities are inaccurate or coincidental if someone who has read his books can add a reference. Radath (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As well as specifically corroboration of any of the themes (virgin birth, December 25th birth, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell, or resurrection) beyond what appears to be the single source of Massey. If all these themes have a root in Massey's "scholarship", this statement should be flagged as dubious or removed.

Considering Harpur leans on Massey's work in Pagan Christ, maybe he has a source for this info - other than Massey - or reasoning for why Massey's work is legit? Thanks for continuing to work this Radath. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well I actually quoted Graves (who I know made this conclusion about Jesus-like similarities), not Massey. As I mentioned above, Harpur suggested Alexander and Warschauer (as well as Freke/Gandy's references) could probably be used for that citation, but I don't have the time right now to find and read these books. As well, I assume that Thompson (who would have relied on his own research and probably has more credibility than all others put together) may have made similar assertions in "The Christ Myth" in 2005 when he concluded the Gospels are mythical in nature and based on Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek and Roman literature, so I will need to see if I can order that book. Until I (or another contributor) can conclusively give credence to that statement about similarities, I am happy to put back the "citation needed" tag. However, I think it is too early to discuss removing it as I only present it as something that some proponents claim (and many myth proponents have claimed this, rightly or wrongly), and I ensure NPOV two sentences later when I wrote "Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis." Still waiting for a citation for that statement though. As always, I am open to all suggestions. Radath (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

PS. These analogies between Christianity and pagan myths are not new. I have heard from various sources that Justin Martyr in the second century blamed the devil for placing similar stories about Jesus in preceding myths like Bacchus, Hercules, and Æsculapius (see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm) and he is often quoted as writing to be born of a virgin mother, without any human mixture, and to be crucified, and dead, and to have risen again and ascended into heaven, we say no more than what you say of those whom you style the sons of Jove.

I forgot to respond to Ckruschke's question about Tom Harpur and Gerald Massey. Harpur cites 80 published authors in The Pagan Christ, notes that he "checked and rechecked" his sources, and I think we should give him some benefit of doubt due to his background (Rhodes Scholar, Anglican priest, New Testament and theology professor, journalist, best-selling author, etc). He previously responded to Porter and Gasque (the only critics of Massey I have read), and when I asked him about the legitimacy of Massey last week, Harpur responded:

As far as I have ever been able to discern, Gerald Massey has not “been disproven.” Rather, he has been deliberately ignored. He spent many, many months working in the British Museum Assyrian and Egyptology section where he worked closely with the curator, Dr. Samuel Birch and other leading Egyptologists of his day, even learning hieroglyphics. In fact, he was there just at the time the temple of Horus at Edfu was first being excavated. He checked his findings with these collaborators. Enemies tried to suppress his books because at that era the idea of Christianity having any African roots was highly offensive to prevailing prejudices of the day.Radath (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd like to see the source documentation behind Massey's scholarship because I have seen no other sources claiming Horus/Osiris mythology as the basis for Jesus. Since the Egyptian mythology that "anyone" can read lists none of the items that Massey attributes to these figures (Dec 25th birth, virgin birth, crucifixion, bodily resurrection, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, etc). I apologize for continuing to come back to this, but from everything "I've read", neither dieties fit ANY of these specifications. I'm not disparaging Harpur - I'm just having a tough time independently corroborating either his or Massey's findings in this area. That being said, its easy to say "the Church was keeping Massey's findings down" which on the surface seems like a dubious excuse. Also his statement that none of Massey's works have been disproven is answering the wrong question. I'm asking him to PROVE that what Massey is saying has some basis in reality. The fact that he mentions crucifixion alone as a connection between Egyptian dieties and Jesus is laughable considering the entire technique was not even used until the Roman times.

Bottomline is I'm not trying to shanghai the conversation. Just have some questions that I think need to answered to lift the flags on that paragraph. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I understand your skepticism, Ckruschke. I am not an expert myself, but I am doing some research so I can provide some harder evidence from scholars on the connection between Jesus and Horus. Radath (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page is working

Hey guys, I've been quiet in the past couple of weeks, not because of a lack of interest, but because somehow we've managed to reach a constructive cooperation here. The talk page appears to be working as it's supposed to. Kudos to all involved and keep up the good work! Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Marttijn. Respectful debate and compromise leads to better content. Radath (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent fringe addition

Regarding this edit:

While I agree that this article need sections on Higgens, Graves, and Massey; there's a lot of WP:UNDUE weight presenting them as having been redeemed by academia (which is not the case), and are all mostly sourced to a fringe book (the article for which is overly promotional). I'm about to leave for work, so I don't really have time to fix this. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As Martijn pointed out just yesterday, we have had a pretty good run here lately with respectful debate and compromise. I like to think that I go further than many contributors to promote NPOV by including counter-arguments and criticisms for most of my new content, and readily self-edit when someone points out a flaw. For example, when I wrote the article on The Pagan Christ, I made sure I included a criticism section that is almost as long as the synopsis itself. Each of the three short paragraphs I posted today on Higgins, Graves and Massey each contain at least one sentence that casts doubt or outright refutes the theories presented.

I also suggest that anyone who chooses to dismiss an author, book, contributor or idea as "fringe" (particularly the best-selling book in Canada in 2004 which was written by a respected former clergyman and New Testament professor) should first read the excellent article by Thomas S. Verenna, The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship.

I look forward to your comments, but perhaps it is worth discussing possible improvements on this Talk page using Bill the Cat's model for consensus before attempting to fix my text or citations. Radath (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - I am skeptical as well about the sections (Massey specifically) as these speculations about roots of a Christ Myth in other mythologies seem to be (IMO) baseless mythologies as well. However, as you see above I've chosen (right or wrong) to "attack" the issue at the top of the page where Radath has put in a very good summation of the article. Currently the 3rd para of that summation is flagged as needing backup citations (beyond The Pagan Christ which appears to me to be a summation of Massey's and other early work w/o the necessary "peeling back the onion" work to ensure that the previous works are rooted in reality). I think "we" are working through those flags at this time. My assumption, which is merely that, is if those items which are flagged go away, then some of the 19th century "scholarship" will either go away or will be extensively rewritten in order to reflect the seeming fact that its fantasy. I also agree with Radath that the Talk page discussions are going well and Radath has been very open to my cumbersome and repeated questions. So please feel free to dive in! Ckruschke (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I have not forgotten my pledge last week to Ckruschke to do some more research on the connections with myths and Old Testament scriptures, and in a few days I hope to propose changes to Key Arguments paragraph 3, as well as an update to the paragraph on Massey that I think will be more acceptable. Before I do though, I want to finish reading some pretty heavy books (pro and con) so I can be confident of my citations. Radath (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Updated myth paragraph

Well, I have been doing a lot of reading the last week or two (to the detriment of my family and other parts of my life), and here are my findings and "devil's advocate" arguments to explain updates to Key argument 3: Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity which I have just posted. My apologies that this analysis is longer than most articles, but I have put it in point form for easier reading.

• I suspect that, like myself, many people sought out the Christ myth wiki article because they had seen Bill Mahar's movie Religulous (the top-grossing documentary in 2008), Zeitgeist the Movie (the original 2007 version has 1.7 million YouTube views) or had read Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ (the best-seller in Canada that year and now available in 6 languages), which all list the Jesus-Horus similarities. There are hundreds of web pages, including a large number of YouTube videos, that focus on Jesus-Horus, so true or not, the idea is is out there.
• Tom Harpur is a respected former Rhodes scholar, Anglican priest, New Testament professor, journalist, broadcaster and best-selling author. In his books and his emails to me (which I quoted on March 2), Harpur (rightly or wrongly) believes in the Horus connection and that Gerald Massey has been ignored but not disproven. I was challenged last week to find a better citation for Horus other than Massey, and I believe Harpur delivers in his 2007 rebuttal to Porter and Gasque: "A reading of Siegfried Morenz's book Egyptian Religion (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1973 - see especially the footnotes on Horus, etc.) and a reading of Erik Hornung’s (2001) The Secret Lore of Egypt and its Impact on the West, will help cure any vagueness on this subject. Hornung, who is without question one of the leading Egyptologists of our time, says pointedly on page 73: “Notwithstanding its superficial rejection of everything pagan, early Christianity was deeply indebted to ancient Egypt ... the Christian slayer of the dragon had its model in the triumph of Horus over Seth ... The miraculous birth of Jesus could be viewed as analogous to that of Horus, who Isis conceived posthumously from Osiris, and Mary was closely connected with Isis by many other shared characteristics.” I am now citing Dr. Hornung in the first sentence and, to avoid criticism, I have removed all citations to Harpur in the summary paragraph.
• Contributors who are CMT critics often target Massey and have even claimed he made everything up, but Godfrey Higgins wrote about the Jesus-Horus Isis-Mary connections 50 years before. Kersey Graves also wrote about dying and rising gods before Massey. This earlier authors had some pretty strange ideas, however, so to avoid criticism, I do not cite Higgins and Graves in the summary paragraph.
• I am almost finished reading Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth despite the negative reviews I have read in the last month (Carrier, Thompson, Verenna). I was surprised that he echoes what I wrote in Key argument 1 about the questionable authorship (he calls them forgeries), contradictions and historical inaccuracies of the gospels, and so I'm still grappling with his analogies (e.g., just because The Hitler Diaries are forgeries doesn't mean there was no Hitler) and his conclusions (certain gospel passages are likely to be true because they appear in more than one gospel, and Jesus was a preacher of an imminent apocalypse before his execution). However, thanks to Ehrman, I can now add Apollonius of Tyana to the paragraph (and have updated the Apollonius article with Ehrman's long list of Christ-like similarities). Ehrman briefly mentions Harpur, Thompson and Price early on and in footnotes, but I have not yet found where he specifically refutes them. Knowing his book was written in 2012 long after Religulous and Zeitgeist, and seeing he goes after targets like Murdock and Freke & Gandy, I expected an entire chapter refuting Higgins, Massey and Horus. Do you know how many times he mentions them? Zero found so far. Maybe Harpur was right about Massey being ignored
• So who in academia says that Massey was wrong? What published source can we cite that he made everything up? Do those websites that claim that Horus was called "The way, the truth, the life" in Book of the Dead all come from Massey, or are there scholarly sources that found that translation? If Massey is responsible for all this controversy about Horus, he should be incredibly famous, but he's not.
• I have read Gasque's critique on Harpur, but I question his methodology (he sent an email that we cannot read to 20 un-named egyptologists with a revealed list of 5 fairly obscure points about Horus, and of the ten who responded, he only gives one or two names, claiming that only one had even heard of Higgins, Kuhn or Massey, and all refute "suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ"). I personally believe he is over-confident in his concluding statement in the article and the CBC documentary that the historicity of Jesus is "incontrovertible".
• The only other major critique of Harpur et al. that I know of is Unmasking the Pagan Christ: An Evangelical Response to the Cosmic Christ Idea by Porter and Bedard (both Canadians like Harpur and Gasque). Neither are archaeologists, so I am not sure if they are qualified to refute Massey on the Horus question. I will let one of you buy and read that one.
• I just found an online version of Massey's biography which suggests he was relatively well known in his day with lecture trips to the United States, literary accolades from Walt Whitman, and an association with Robert Browning. Raising himself up from child labourer without the benefit of formal education, he was no "fool" as he was called here recently, but he may have been crazy for arguing there was no Jesus 140 years ago when blasphemy laws were still on the books in England. Sure he believed in spiritualism, but so did a lot of intelligent people at that time like Arthur Conan Doyle, Harry Houdini and Horace Greely. He was also upfront in his writings that he was capable of mistakes with his translations and interpretations, and like me, he happily corrected himself when a critic would point out an error. Also leafing through, I found a passage from 1887 that repeats Harpur's email that Dr Samuel Birch, head of Egyptian antiquities at the British museum, had befriended Massey, corrected his writings and offered advice. It also noted the assistance from other museum experts Claude Montefiore and Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, but that Birch's successor, Peter le Page Renouf, was a Roman Catholic convert who was accused of writing anonymous letters to publications meant to discredit Massey. On another page, I saw that famed translator Sir Richard Burton had read and made favourable comments about Massey's work, and that the Egyptian roots of Christianity were already well known among scholars. The book's epilogue lists some of his ideas that have been vindicated in modern times. Again, I don't have time to read the whole book and verify sources, but I think it's a fair indication Massey may have been more of an expert than we think. However, to avoid criticism, I do not cite Massey in the summary paragraph.
• During my surfing, I also found a YouTube video featuring an Egyptian archaeologist, Dr. Bojana Mojsov, who spoke about the similarities between Christianity and ancient Egypt. Turns out it is part of The Hidden Story of Jesus by Christian academic theologian Dr. Robert Beckford which appeared on Britain's Channel 4 in 2007. The program explores similarities with Krishna, Mithra, Buddah and Osiris, and, like Harpur's The Pagan Christ, argues we should focus on the message of Jesus rather than religious dogma.
• I have just finished reading The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems by Bob Price. Although it is heavy with long passages of both Old and New Testament scriptures to show their similarities, there are also dozens of references to other scholars and sparks of LOL humour. No matter what side of the debate you sit, I strongly urge you to spend the $10 and buy the ebook version (available from Amazon and Price's website), if for nothing else than to read his logical conclusions on the last three pages. The book reminded me to include relevant terms such as "divine men" and "mythic hero archetype" in the paragraph. Strangely this book does not mention Higgins, Massey or Horus either, but it does touch on documented similarities with other myths including analogies with Homer's The Odyssey which I found interesting. Although he doesn't talk about December 25 or mythical crucifixions, he lists enough other similarities with mythic figures to earn him the main citation for the relevant sentence in the paragraph. Although claimed by others, to avoid criticism and so I can use one reference, I have removed references to December 25 and crucifixion from the summary paragraph.
• My plan was to avoid referring to Murdock as I realize that anything she says will be seen as suspect by myth critics. However, I know her 2009 book Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection received a positive review by Price, as well as endorsements from American archaeology professors Dr. Robert H. Eisenman and Dr. Kenneth Feder. Instead of buying the book, I found free versions of her Origins of Christianity (a short summary of similarities with Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Krishna and Prometheus), Zeitgeist Sourcebook, her response to a Zeitgeist critic, and her biography of Massey. There was was some interesting information, but I was disappointed (and think she does herself a disservice) that most of her Horus and Massey references point back to Massey or her own paid book, and I don't want to buy as I don't have time to read it right now. To avoid criticism, I do not cite Murdock in the summary paragraph.
• I sent the former myth summary paragraph to Richard Carrier for his thoughts as his new peer-reviewed book The Historicity of Jesus comes out later this year. Although he thought the paragraph had some accuracy problems, particularly the reference to Horus, he sent me two emails arguing the paragraph should remain as is since it accurately summarizes that some CMT proponents argue x, y, and z and CMT critics argue the opposite. However, Carrier doesn't realize the level of peer review I need to go through from fellow contributors like my friend Ckruschke, so I voluntarily made some changes. For example, I have removed Adonis, Attis, Baal and Damuzi/Tammuz to keep the paragraph short, unless anyone thinks any of these should be returned.
• I chose the actual reference authors and books based on various factors. If you have a problem with any of the citations (Erik Hornung, John M. Robertson, Martin Hengel, Arthur Drews, Robert M. Price, Zacharias P. Thundy, Nigel Leask, Thomas L. Brodie, and Bart D. Ehrman), I can replace them with another.
• So do I defend Massey as a legitimate scholar and believe that Jesus is a copy of Horus? As a skeptic, I have serious doubts, but I have yet to find credible evidence that fully discredits him either. But even if we had proof (which we do not) that Higgins, Massey and Murdock are big fat liars who made up 99% of everything they wrote, we also have to allow that at least some of their assertions or citations are based on some shreds of truth. Although the myths summary is the fun and sexy headline that leads to intriguing videos and brings in the crowds, I think it is the weakest of the three arguments, and if we removed the paragraph all together (which we should not), it would neither definitively prove nor disprove if Jesus lived or not.
• Comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. Radath (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Jesus-Horus connection is IMHO tentative at best. There are sources that point out that in the original Greek Paul seems to deny a virgin birth in Romans 1:1-3 (he talks of Jesus being the product of the seed or sperma of David ie through the male line) and Galatians 4:4 (Paul uses the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin)). Furthermore, the first recorded effort in a Christian Bible (Marcion) supposedly used a version of Luke that started at our Luke 3:1 ie no birth story and our oldest intact version of Luke (Papyrus 75) is also missing the birth story. This has lead some people to postulate that our Luke was a reaction to Marcion Gospel (was claimed Marcion said came from Paul). See Waite, Charles B. (1881) History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred and Tyson, Joseph B (2006) Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle University of South Carolina Press; annotated edition ISBN-13: 978-1570036507 for more on this aspect of Luke. However, the point is that the whole virgin birth thing seems to be a late addition to the Jesus story between Paul and when ever Matthew was written with stuff added to Luke between 140 and 180 CE to make it appear to agree with Matthew.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Radath - Wow - just Wow... You really put in some time on this. Very impressed. Sorry I didn't comment sooner, but I was out of the country. I have no comments - nagative or otherwise - on anything above. That's not particularly "constructive", but your research was so good anything that I have to say will seem uninformed. A well earned kudos on this one as you have gone WAY over and above! Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I realize the summary was a bit overboard in order to answer a simple challenge to find a scholarly Horus-Jesus citation and to demonstrate that Massey had some legitimacy, but it was fun doing the research. I hope my made my point that Horus and Massey deserve a place in the article. I'll try to be more brief in the future, at least for my own sanity. Thanks again to Ckruschke for pressing me to back up my assertions, because I think the updated paragraph makes a better argument than it did before. Radath (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the section "No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century"

I have been on a wikibreak for several months, I see a lot of discussion on this talk page and in the archives that I have not read all the way through, so forgive me if this has been discussed already. There are numerous problems with the section "No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century", rather than make bold edits I thought it would be better to discuss them here first. The problems begin with the section heading, it should say something like "No mention of Jesus in surviving first century histories" as all but a tiny fragment of the writings from antiquity are lost and not all readers will be aware of that. Then in the body of the text it says " Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century' and this sentence is sourced to Harpur, "The Pagan Christ". I feel the reference to "40 historians" must relate to Remsburg's list, which there was a lengthy discussion about some time ago, see the section "List of 42 authors" in the archives . If this is a reference to Remsburg's list, the authors on it are certainly not all historians. In any case, the statement is incorrect, there are not at least 40 historians whose works survive from the first century who make no mention of Jesus or his miracles. It would really be better, and all that this article needs, just to say " Myth proponents point out that,other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century" and not go into Josephus and Pliny and Tacitus at all as those passages need more discussion than there is really room for here. What is said about those passages at the moment is not right.

"It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period" - no. See Josephus on Jesus, there is not one "brief reference to Jesus" in Josephus, there is one longish passage called the "Testimonium Flavianum", that is the passage that it has often been argued (I would not use the word "speculated" as that carries an implication of guesswork, there are more scholarly grounds for doubting its authenticity than mere speculation) was forged in whole or in part, probably by early church historian Eusebius in the fourth century, not the second. There is another mention, which is indeed brief, in which Josephus refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and that is the one that "myth proponents" speculate, the word "speculate" is appropriate here, really refers to someone other than the Christian figure of Jesus.

The section continues "and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source." This is sourced to the Harpur book, I find it hard to believe it really says that, if it does I must question its value as a source because it is quite ludicrous to suggest that Suetonius, Pliny and the Roman senator Tacitus consulted the gospels and used them as their source, never in years of studying the subject and reading about it have I ever seen such a suggestion before. What "myth proponents" suggest is that those Roman authors were reporting hearsay, it has occasionally been suggested that the Pliny and Tacitus passages are forgeries, but there is very little credence given to those ideas any more. See Pliny the Younger on Christians,Suetonius on Christians and Tacitus on Christ. Also it cannot be stated that those three only wrote 20 lines about Jesus as there are many lost works by all of them and we don't know what the lost works may have said.

So, to recap - I suggest that the section heading be changed to "No mention of Jesus in surviving histories (or records) in early first century" and the section text just says " Myth proponents point out that,other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century." The statement about 40 historians who make no mention of Jesus must be removed. I don't think the sentence "Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period" is really necessary either.

If it is felt that Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius absolutely must be discussed in this article, then I think it should be changed to something like "There are two mentions of Jesus in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100). Proponents of the Christ myth theory suggest that one mention is a forgery and the other refers to someone other than the Christian figure of Jesus. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) make brief mentions of Christ but myth proponents suggest they were merely reporting hearsay", with links to relevant articles.(Pliny the Younger wasn't really a historian, but never mind about that right now).Smeat75 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Smeat75. Before posting the new Key arguments section a few weeks ago, I first posted draft text on this page to get feedback, and although most comments have been quite positive, most of the debate has been about paragraph 3. Using your suggestions, here is the current paragraph 2 and a proposed update. Are you able to supply the missing citations? For example, I seem to recall that in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon suggested Eusebius was a forger, but did he accuse him of forging Josephus? Off to meetings and then out if town, so I can't check Gibbons or Harpur today. Radath (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v1) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) collectively only wrote a total of 20 lines about Jesus and used the historically questionable gospels as their main source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus than most others who lived in that time period.

Key argument 2 (v2) Lack of historical evidence from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Jesus from any non-Jewish author until the second century. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) may have been an interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Christus, but myth proponents suggest they were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention Jesus by name. Theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew in this period. Radath (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a slightly longer version to address Smeat75's concerns in the next section on this page, but I would not want to see it get any longer. The intention of the Key arguments section is to provide BRIEF summaries of the views of theory proponents followed by a one sentence rebuttal by theory opponents. Can anyone help with the citations? Radath (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v3) Lack of historical evidence from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Christ from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they cite that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 CE. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), a passage that states that Jesus Chrrist had followers and was crucified by Pilate, may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Christus, but myth proponents suggest they may have been forgeries, were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention Jesus by name. Theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Radath (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's much better, thank you, particularly the inclusion of the reference to Philo of Alexandria. The only little quibble I have is that I think it would be better to say "do not mention the name 'Jesus'" rather than "do not mention Jesus by name" in the sentence about Roman historians. I will try to supply some citations in the next day or two. Smeat75 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have found citations for the statements that the vast majority of classical literature is lost and that the suggestion has been made by mythicists that the Tacitus passage (by far the most important one of the Roman authors) is merely reporting hearsay and is therefore worthless as historical evidence of Jesus. Would you like to put the revised paragraph in the longer of your versions into the article, Radath, and I will supply the citations where the tags say "citation needed." ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I made some minor edits after re-reading Chapter 2 of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? Last night. for example, when I said the Testimonium Flavianum referred to Jesus Christ, I was using the Misplaced Pages translation where the actual translation is "the Messiah". As for the last sentence, Ehrman states that Josephus wrote about a number of Jews on page 58, but I kept in the reference from page 44 that little was written about any Jew (or any person for that matter) as that was his argument. As well, I debated adding that Josephus also spoke about other people called Jesus (Ehrman, p. 58), but Ehrman states that the Testimonium and James the Just passages refer to "Jesus of Nazareth" (although Josephus never said Jesus was from Nazareth). Finally, I have changed the last sentence in all three Key arguments to start with "However" so it is clearly presenting the alternate view. I posted v4 on the main page so Smeat75 can add his citations. Radath (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Key argument 2 (v4) Lack of historical evidence about Jesus from first century Myth proponents point out that there are no surviving historic records about Christ from any non-Jewish author until the second century, adding Jesus left no writings or other archaeological evidence. Using the argument from silence, they cite that Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria did not mention Jesus when he wrote about the cruelty of Pontius Pilate around 40 CE. Some suspect the Testimonium Flavianum by Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100), a passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, may have been a partial interpolation or forgery by Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century or by others. There is also speculation the other Josephus reference to James the Just as the brother of Jesus Christ was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Roman historians Tacitus (AD 56– c.117), Pliny the Younger (AD 61– c.112) and Suetonius (AD 69–c.112) all make brief mentions of Christians, Christ or Chrestus, but myth proponents suggest they may have been forgeries, were merely reporting hearsay and do not mention the name "Jesus". However, theory critics argue that much of the writings of antiquity have been lost and that there was little written about any Jew or Christian in this period. Radath (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You put in a clause about Josephus mentioning other people named Jesus, Radath, I took it out, it was a very common name at that time, it isn't that important and was turning this paragraph into "why Josephus cannot be believed on anything he says about Jesus" which is not what this paragraph should be about. In any case, that information did not belong before the reference to the Testimonium Flavianum, if it belongs anywhere it should go before the mention of the "brother of Jesus who was called James" passage.Smeat75 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reached when I added the multiple mentions of other people who were called Jesus after I had previously decided against it, and although I agree it might be better in the James sentence, it didn't work well with the verb "speculate" agreed on with Smeat75. At a minimum, the common Jesus name increases the possibility that Josephus could have (before interpolations) been talking about someone like Jesus son of Damneus who was High Priest of Israel. As for the deletion of my addition, I have been making edits on the assumption it was appropriate to "be bold" and add information to an article, but we should avoid deleting someone's properly-sourced text without first discussing on this page as per Bill the Cat's model for consensus. I would like to find a happy compromise, so here is my suggestion for everyone's thoughts:

• Current: There is also speculation the other Josephus reference, that James the Just was the brother of Jesus Christ, was written at a time when a mythic Christ may already have been historicized or was referring to a fraternal brother rather than a sibling.
• Proposed: There is also speculation that when Josephus called James the Just the "brother" of Jesus Christ in a later passage, he was referring to another Jesus, a mythic Christ may already have been historicized, or he meant a fraternal brother rather than a sibling. Radath (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes, that's fine, the "proposed" version is much better. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was the section "Arguments from Silence" removed?

There have been very substantial re-writings of this article since I last looked at it months ago, and although I am not a "mythicist" I feel it is not doing a service to WP readers to have no mention of the failure of Philo of Alexandria in his "Embassy to Gaius" to refer to Christ or Christians.That is the one place in surviving contemporary accounts where one might expect a mention of Jesus or Christians, but there is none. There was a good section "Arguments from silence" and also a section "Absence of contemporary evidence" which discussed the lack of archaeological or contemporaneous accounts of Jesus' life or death, but they have been removed, why is that?Smeat75 (talk)

I am not sure who removed what as it was before my time, but looking back at the mass deletions and undo arguments last summer, I can confidently say I am glad to be participating now when we are using this Talk page for constructive cooperation as Martijn Mmeijeri, Ckruschke and others have recently pointed out. With that said, I believe those "Argument of silence" and the "Absence of contemporary evidence" sections are probably too detailed for the article in its current format, and I have instead tried to address those points in Version 3 of the updated Key argument 2 proposed in the previous section. Radath (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Current State

I've just looked over the current state of this article and I'm seeing a lot of improvement over the—whether intended or not—outright Christian apologist format of the previous versions. Things are looking more neutral here. We seem to be getting closer to drawing out some of the inherent problems with this field; i.e. more material analyzing the apparent Christian exceptionalism so rampant in this field (like ) would help it along a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article is much clearer than it was on January 23 when I started coming here:

• short intro lede (reached through compromise) that states the position of CMT proponents, but that CMT is rejected by almost all scholars
• summary of the three main arguments (presented first on this Talk page) with multiple citations and a final rebuttal sentence for each
• summaries of more authors with some criticism thrown in
• links to mythicist books and documentaries
• a hefty criticism section at the end with links to opposing articles
• a friendly and respectful Talk page where we challenge without attacking. Radath (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Although I disagree with :bloodofox:'s comment that the page was a Christian apologist front previously (I think many "Christian apologists" would say that the page gives too much credence to paganism), I whole-heartedly endorse Radath's comments that the page has been going through an evolutionary process recently through respectful colaboration and friendly dialogue. Considering what the Talk page USED to be like, i.e. the typical strife and drama of most religeon-oriented Wiki Talk pages, this is a monumental turn for the better... Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Voltaire and other Deists

I am thinking of writing an introduction to the 18th-19th century section mentioning how the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment paved the way for CMT. I understand that Deists like Voltaire (and maybe even US founding fathers Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson), believed in Jesus but did not believe in the miracles of the New Testament, a position not so different than that of David Strauss who some call the father of CMT. As well, I remember reading that Voltaire argued once that Jesus never lived, although perhaps it was tongue in cheek or playing devils advocate in his dialogues as he often did. Does anyone have a reference for Voltaire's Jesus quote? Have any of the mythicist authors made this connection between Deists and CMT? Radath (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the researcher you are, but I'm happy to try and add my feeble help. The only quote I found from Voltaire on Jesus' divinity was his derogatory summary of the Socinians. His summary of the Church appears to be evenhanded and smacks of even being written by a believer. Reportedly his last words were: “I am abandoned by God and man! I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months’ life. Then I shall go to hell; and you will go with me. O Christ! O Jesus Christ!” So one wonders if he had a death-bead revelation (in fact, I read several Christian-oriented websites that, though uncited, go well beyond this quote to include additional dialogue that states that Voltaire had a full on death-bed conversation).

Regarding our Founding Fathers, to be fair I think that one would have to weigh their letters prior to their later, post-Revolution life, with their writings from their youth when many of them were swept up in the First Great Awakening. It is somewhat easy to cherry-pick quotes depending on which side of the aisle you are on, but I've read from several sources on our Founding Fathers that they were largely strong Christians in their youth, but somewhat embittered about the Church as they aged (speaking with a very broadbrush).

I'm sure none of this helps you, but I thought I'd tee something up anyway. Ckruschke (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I feel it would be better, if possible, to try to keep the focus on the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all rather than people who did not / do not believe in the truth of the miracles of the NT. If we look at the first sentence of the lead of the article right now it says "The Christ myth theory ... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed" but that is sort of tilting at windmills because, first of all, you need to define how exactly Jesus is defined in the gospels, which there has never been agreement on, and then it is not at all a mainstream position that the "Jesus of the gospels" existed anyway. Very very few, maybe zero, I am not sure, mainstream scholars these days would insist that Jesus changed water into wine, raised the dead, etc. The idea "Jesus never existed at all" is a popular "conspiracy"-type theory on the web, and it is only going to get worse, or better I suppose according to your viewpoint, with Richard Carrier's forthcoming book on the subject. I almost feel it would be better to have a separate article just on the question "did Jesus exist (at all), or not" without also including the matters of possible influence on the gospels and the figure of Christ from other mythologies, etc., but I suppose the last thing WP needs is another article on Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand Smeat75's concern about not listing further people who believed in Jesus, but not his miracles, a category where I think we could easily put Franklin, Jefferson and Payne (Hitchens suggested Jefferson was not a Christian, but not that Jefferson didn't believe in a historical Jesus), but I still believe that anyone who questioned the literal interpretation of the New Testament back then would have paved the way for the first mythicists. I just found it strange that the position of these Founding Fathers (at least later in their lives) was essentially the same as David Strauss who caused so much controversy, the loss of his academic post and the label "Founder of CMT" a few decades later. Ironically, the views of Strauss were pretty similar or may have even been more conservative than those held by Ehrman (who calls himself an agnostic with atheist leanings) and many mainstream scholars today. As I stated on this Talk page on February 22, I think that CMT may have originally referred to anyone who thought any aspect of JC's life as described in the Bible was mythical, but I don't have a citation for that yet. I think Voltaire is in a different category though. If he had a deathbed conversion to Jesus as I have read several times, he must not have believed in Jesus for a portion of his life (or at least publicly argued the point, if only tongue-in-cheek or as devils advocate in one of his dialogues), and since he pre-dates Volnay and Dupuis, he should be in this article if we can find the citation. With that said, I'd bet anything that there were others before this who doubted the existence of Christ, but did so privately, anonymously (read about the Treatise of the Three Impostors which dates back to the 12th century), or if they went public, they probably ended up on the wrong side of the Inquisition and their works likely destroyed as heretical. Radath (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The friendliness of this page has convinced me to come back to touch on some of these points. The idea "MT may have originally referred to anyone who thought any aspect of JC's life as described in the Bible was mythical" IMHO can to some degree be traced with the classification of Frazer as being among those "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125).

In Archibald Robertson's 1946 Jesus: Myth or History? it is stated "(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story." and pointed to three possible "seeds" for the story concluding "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded"

Biblical scholar Ian Howard Marshall in his 2004 I Believe in the Historical Jesus talks about the two ways Jesus can be historical: 1) Jesus existed, rather than being a totally fictional creation like King Lear or Doctor Who, or 2) the Gospels give a reasonable account of historical events, rather than being unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur. He finishes this section with the comment "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." Given that Wells' Jesus Myth and later position that a real flesh and blood 1st century Galileen who was not crucified was the basis of the Gospels story we seem to have exactly that confusion Marshall talked about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
2. The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (1998), Harper SanFrancisco, ISBN 0-06-062979-7
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference DunnPaul35 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
5. ^ Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
6. ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference voorst16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hertzog1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
11. ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
12. ^ In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285 Cite error: The named reference "Ehrman285" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
13. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
14. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
15. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
16. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
17. Voorst 2003, p. 658. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2003 (help)
18. Voorst 2000, p. 8. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2000 (help)
19. Voorst 2000, p. 9. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2000 (help)
20. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
21. Playboy Interview; Richard Dawkins by Chip Rowe, August 20, 2012.
22. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
23. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
24. ^ Voorst 2000, p. 8-9. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2000 (help)
25. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN -4303-1230-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
26. Playboy Interview; Richard Dawkins by Chip Rowe, August 20, 2012.
27. Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2004)
28. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
29. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
30. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at intern.com
31. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
32. Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2004)
33. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN -4303-1230-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
34. Playboy Interview; Richard Dawkins by Chip Rowe, August 20, 2012.
35. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
36. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at intern.com
37. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
38. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
39. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
40. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
41. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
42. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
43. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
44. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
45. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
46. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
47. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
48. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
49. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
50. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
51. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
52. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
53. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
54. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
55. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
56. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
57. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
58. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
59. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
60. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
61. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
62. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
63. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
64. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
65. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
66. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
67. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
68. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
69. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
70. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
71. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
72. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
73. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
74. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
75. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
76. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
77. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
78. "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
79. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
80. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
81. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
82. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
83. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
84. A theory of primitive Christian religion by Gerd Theissen 2003 ISBN 0-334-02913-9 pages 23–27
85. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 7–8
86. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
87. Dawkins, 2006, p. 96
88. Dawkins, 2006, p. 99
89. Harpur, 2006, p. 174
90. Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
91. Ehrman, 2009
92. Harpur, 2006, p.162
93. Harpur, 2006, p.55
94. Harpur, 2006, p. 162
95. Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.xix-xx
96. Harpur, 2006, p. 174
97. Dawkins, 2006, p. 97
98. Harpur, 2006, p. 174
99. Dawkins, 2006, p. 97
100. Thomas L. Brodie "Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery" Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd (September 6, 2012) ISBN 978-1907534584
101. Harpur, 2006, p.162
102. Harpur, 2006, p.55
103. Harpur, 2006, p. 162
104. Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.xix-xx
105. Bart D. Ehrman. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins, USA, 2012, p.47 ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8,
106. Kennneth A. Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999
107. Robert M. Price. The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems, Atheist Press, 2011, p.132, ISBN 9781578840175
108. Ehrman, 2012, p.44
109. Bart D. Ehrman. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins, USA, 2012, p.47 ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8
110. Gerald O'Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. 2009, pp. 1-3 ISBN 0-19-955787-X
111. Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria.1997, p. 14ISBN 9004103880
112. Kennneth A. Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999
113. Robert M. Price. The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems, Atheist Press, 2011, p.132, ISBN 9781578840175
114. Harry Elmer Barnes. The Twilight of Christianity. New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931. ISBN 0877000379
115. Ehrman, 2012, p.44
116. Timothy Barnes Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to Ad 600. 1991, p. 232 ISBN 0687114446
117. Bart D. Ehrman. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, HarperCollins, USA, 2012, p.47 ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8
118. Gerald O'Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. 2009, pp. 1-3 ISBN 0-19-955787-X
119. Peder Borgen, Philo of Alexandria.1997, p. 14ISBN 9004103880
120. Kennneth A. Olson, Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (2): 305, 1999
121. Robert M. Price. The Christ Myth Theory and it's Problems, Atheist Press, 2011, p.132, ISBN 9781578840175
122. Harry Elmer Barnes. The Twilight of Christianity. New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931. ISBN 0877000379
123. Ehrman, 2012, p.44
124. Timothy Barnes Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to Ad 600. 1991, p. 232 ISBN 0687114446

• 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