| Revision as of 19:01, 29 October 2014 editJoseAziz78 (talk | contribs)19 edits →Degrading of Acharya S does not belong here← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:15, 29 October 2014 edit undoIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 edits →Degrading of Acharya S does not belong hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
| ] (]) 18:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | ] (]) 18:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Misplaced Pages does not: | |||
| :*] that ] ], especially if it's ] | |||
| :*] to ] | |||
| :] (]) 19:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:15, 29 October 2014
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Index
|
|
Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
To Do List: Source Verification and Revisions
The following excerpt makes no sense:
"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"
If mythicists believe Jesus never existed, then how can they believe that the Gospels were written decades after his death? Answer: It is written with a pro-historical bias and needs to be rewritten in order to a reflect a true mythical point of view.
There is no historical bias, they're just stating that the gospels were written after the alleged lifetime of Jesus, which comes from the gospels themselves. They're point out an inconsistency saying, the documents suggest X happened between A and B, but the documents themselves were written well after A and B. 209.202.10.205 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
To Do List: Source Verification and Revisions
Use this section to report false, misquoted, and misrepresented citations, and to explain subsequent revisions.
Citations Specifying the Narrow Definition of the CMT
| section is for references only |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
Fact Substitutes Abound in Criticism Section
While the previous sections seem to have their claims cited, there is fact-substitute phrasing in the criticism section. For example, "Nevertheless, Christ Myth theories find very little support from scholars." is a claim without citation with rhetorical force. Though it is difficult to provide justification for a claim that there is a lack of scholarly support for an idea, that is what would be required to make this claim. The semantic content of the sentence, also, is of questionable scholarly value, considering the above sections provide precisely the support from scholars that the critical authors claim is lacking. The criticism section may be re-written in such a manner as to not rely so heavily on the claim that "most scholars don't take the Christ Myth Theory seriously". Rather than making indirect references to sources that allegedly prove the historicity of Jesus, why not reference them directly, with their dates of publication, as is usually expected of Misplaced Pages?
169.231.35.176 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes the section seems to rely solely on an appeal to authority without any acknowledgement of actual refuting evidence for Christ Myth Theories. This leads to questioning of the entire legitimacy of scholarly refutation of Jesus mythicism.Direct arguments against the legitimacy of the theory should be inserted here not appeals to academic authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.144.214 (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Richard Carrier points out there are two historical Jesus theories being argued in much of the material:
A Reductive theory where "Jesus was an ordinary but obscure individual who inspired a religious movement and copious legends about him"
A Triumphalist theory where "The Gospels are totally or almost totally true"
Carrier goes on to state "Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)" (sic) (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 26-30)
To simplify matters Carrier comes up with his own criteria for a minimal historical Jesus:
"1) An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an an identifiable movement after his death
2) This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities
3) This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod)
If any one of these premises is false, it can fairly be said there was no historical Jesus in any pertinent sense, And at least one of them must be false for any Jesus Myth theory to be true." (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 34)
However Carrier actually spells out just what his three criteria for a minimal historical Jesus actually means:
"But notice that now we don't even require that is considered essential in many church creeds. For instance, it is not necessary that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Maybe he was, But even if we proved he wasn't that still does not vindicate mysticism. Because the 'real' Jesus may have been executed by Herod Antipas (as the Gospel of Peter in fact claims) or by Roman authorities in an earlier or later decade then Pilate (as some early Christians really did think) Some scholars even argue for an earlier century (and have some real evidence to cite) ... My point at present is that even if we proved proved the founder of Christianity was executed by Herod the Great (not even by Romans, much less Pilate, and a whole forty years before the Gospels claim), as long as his name or nickname (whether assigned before or after his death) really was Jesus and his execution is the very thing spoken of as leading him to the status of the divine Christ venerated in the Epistles, I think it would be fair to say the mythicists are then simply wrong. I would say this even if Jesus was never really executed but only believed to have been because even then it's still the same historical man being spoken of and worshiped." (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 33) --216.223.234.97 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
New academic, peer reviewed work by historian Dr. Richard Carrier
Can one of you editors do something with this quote?
“In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination put the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600
Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- IMHO that one work could clean up much of this article. Carrier even goes into why much of the material regarding a historical Jesus on both sides has problems.--216.223.234.97 (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Before adding it we need to establish the degree to which it is accepted in reliable secondary sources. The Jesus actually lived theory is based on the fact that numerous of his followers in the century after his death wrote accounts of his life and even after he came to the attention of the non-Christian community, none of their opponents ever claimed he never lived. So while that is not conclusive proof he lived, it is circumstantial and opponents need to provide an explanation why his existence was widely accepted.
- To most historians whether or not he lived is unimportant.
- TFD (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- We only need to do that if we want to present his view in Misplaced Pages voice, which is not what is being proposed. I'd say that Richard Carrier is one of the most prominent CMT proponents, so we can certainly use the quote. However, it appears the information is already present in the section on Carrier. If the OP wants to make some changes, s/he is free to have a go at it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated Assertion of Consensus
"Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of a historical Jesus, there remains a nearly universal consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived,"
Citing a few books (does that constitute peer reviewed scholarly work?) by a handful of authors does not constitute near universal consensus. For such a statement I would expect at the very least a poll, some sort of actual statistic that evaluates the group being identified as 'in consensus'. It seems fairly common in this article that books, the contents of which require purchase, are used as justification for the assertion of some sort of consensus. E.g also see:
"Ultimately, mainstream biblical scholars say there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus,"
Notice how that's a book by a single author somehow supposed to be representing the mainstream consensus of biblical scholars? Such 'citations' appear littered throughout the article. If it's going claim consensus it needs to demonstrate it, not cite a book by a single author. 209.202.10.205 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- The policy for using Misplaced Pages voice to assert there is a consensus among scholars in a field is WP:RS/AC: we need a reliable source to state there is a consensus, we are not supposed to conduct a poll ourselves. If another reliable source contradicts the first, then we report the controversy, as we always do when reliable sources disagree. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Francesco Carotta
User:Dukon has added a section on Francesco Carotta. No problem there, Carotta is of course not a WP:RS on ordinary articles under WP:FRINGE but definitely belongs here. Still, there were three problems I've edited out
- We cannot claim Carotta is a "scholar". A scholar means somebody with some kind of formal competence (a PhD on the subject and/or doing academic research on the subject at some university or research centre). Carotta, as far as I know, have no higher degree the studies he has done have been in other subjects.
- There were some peacock words, such as saying how 'exhaustively' Carotta has identified different things. We don't make evaluations like that.
- The whole second paragraph has nothing to do with Carotta. It made a number of claims and its source was a good WP:RS academic book, but the book does not even mention Carotta. Trying to push the book as support for Carotta when the authors ignore him is WP:SYNTH.Jeppiz (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Dukon (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your corrections on these points. It helps me learn proper Misplaced Pages practice, which of course is much appreciated.
I had no idea that Carotta does not have a PhD. I would have thought he did but I actually do not know so if you have checked then you're right. Are you saying though that even if he has a PhD but it is not in the subject of this book here cited, that it is not a Misplaced Pages policy to be able to call him a Scholar? I think he really has been exhaustive in pointing out so many of these parallels and for seeing this in the first place he has to be scholarly to do so. But if the Misplaced Pages policy blocks his being called a scholar due to an other-topic-PhD then so be it.
I wanted to include the Cambridge History "emergence of the written record" reference not because it mentions Carotta which it doesn't you're correct to point out, but because it DOES refer to the existence of an Oral Tradition which preceded (obviously) the written record. SO I put that Chapter of the larger Cambridge volume in there to document the existence of a valid oral tradition, in addition to of course the Oral Tradition Misplaced Pages pages. Do you think if I worded the sentence which had the Cambridge citation in a way to better highlight that only the Oral tradition is corroborated by the Cambridge scholars that it would be acceptable to keep that citation as part of the contribution?
Thank you very much for your Wikiexpert input!
Dukon (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Popular authors vs academics
I'd like to propose grouping popular authors separately from academic authors. The CMT is mostly a popular phenomenon, at least nowadays, but it would be useful to make a clear distinction between the many popular and few academic authors that thave published on the subject. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Michael Paulkovich
I think Michael Paulkovich should be added to this article because his book No Meek Messiah claims that Christ is a myth.72.148.3.214 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Mythicist position
Acharya S/DM Murdock created the first succinct and comprehensive position for mythicists in her book Christ in Egypt (2009)outlined in the video and link below and it should be properly worked into her section of this article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63BNKhGAVRQ
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."
"As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (2009), page 12
JoseAziz78 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Degrading of Acharya S does not belong here
https://en.wikipedia.org/Christ_myth_theory#Dorothy_M._Murdock_.2F_Acharya_S
Acharya S has made it clear that she does not ever want any other names used besides Acharya S or D.M. Murdock as explained in these links:
https://www.facebook.com/acharyasanning/posts/709849762361439
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=28736#p28736
and the comment: "revives the early 19th century theories of Godfrey Higgins and Robert Taylor" is false and should be removed as anybody who has actually read her work would know.
This comment is just a smear and does not belong anywhere at Wiki: "Her views have been challenged by other mythicists such as Richard Carrier." So what?, Carrier's criticisms of her work have been sloppy and egregiously in error as explained here:
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4771#p4771
This is another smear as even if true it has nothing to do with this article and should be removed: "Acharya has also been criticized by mainstream academics for concluding that Christ's crucifixion by Roman authorities is a repetition of Krishna being shot in the foot by a hunter or Odysseus tying himself to his ship mast to hear the sirens' song, and generally overreaching and relying on outdated scholarship.
JoseAziz78 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages does not:
- censor material that fanatics just don't like, especially if it's academically sourced
- give false balance to topics rejected by mainstream scholarship
- Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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