This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Self-ref (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 26 November 2013 (→Textual Analysis, Aggregate Recovery: 2nd attempt to fix same). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:44, 26 November 2013 by Self-ref (talk | contribs) (→Textual Analysis, Aggregate Recovery: 2nd attempt to fix same)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Index
|
|
Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
To Do List: Source Verification and Revisions
Use this section to report false, misquoted, and misrepresented citations, and to explain subsequent revisions.
Disruptive editing by Dickie birdie
You are engaging in an edit-war. If you keep this up, you are likely to be banned from editing. The docetism issue has been discussed before, and considered off-topic for this page. I won't revert you again, but someone else probably will, and if you revert that revert again it will likely result in a ban. We can always discuss this agin, but you cannot unilaterally impose your changes on this article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies; Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies; Epiphanius, Panarion - do we need to compile a collection of sources that the idea of a mythical and incorporeal Christ that Christians believed in dates from long before the 18th centuries. These facts are to be found in standard reference books and surely should be included on Misplaced Pages. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Incorporeal" and "mythical" are two totally different concepts. The Docetist theory is rather like one of those old episodes of Star Trek in which trans-dimensional beings create a hologram-like "body" for themselves in order to communicate with humans. It doesv not dispute the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus' life in the Gospels, but states that his body was purely spiritual, not material in form. Christ Myth theory is the totally different view that the events described in ther Gospels did not happen at all. Paul B (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Christians believed that the positions held by Basilides, Marcion etc were mythical and that's why they refuted them. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- In that case you might say that orthodox Christians espoused a CMT of sorts, in that they said that the gnostics' Jesus was mythical. But gnostics did not espouse the view that Jesus was mythical, just that he did not have a physical body. In their view it was apparently possible to have a spiritual body.
- There is a link between the CMT and gnosticism however. Price for instance believes that the belief in a historical man Jesus arose from adapting earlier myths about a celestial Jesus, or perhaps earlier myths about other celestial beings. We would call such beings mythical, but the ancients who believed in them would not have.Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Christians believed that the positions held by Basilides, Marcion etc were mythical and that's why they refuted them. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- You have made my point, the fact that there were Christian groups out there who believed in a Jesus Christ that was incorporeal, without a physical body, shows that the physical Christ did not exist to them, and that the idea of a mythical Christ dates from well before the 18th century. The idea of a Christ without a body can only be mythical. Irrespective of whether this involved devotional religious worship. Dickie birdie (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not only Price but Michel Grant (see Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_39#Grant though there was a debate regarding if this was an accurate description of docetism or a continuation of the supposedly 'mistaken" idea it related to the Christ Myth theory (see Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_39#Docetism) Looking through the archives is a good idea as odds are the idea has come up before.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted the article to the original page, but it does not give all the facts. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really follow you. Orthodox Christians didn't accept these views, no, but you are using the word "mythical" simply to mean "wrong" here. You could equally say that they thought the view that Jesus was a normal human being was "mythical". Paul B (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have updated the article on Gilles Quispel Dickie birdie (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just to add, the events in the Gospels were interpreted as not being historical in nature by the Gnostics, Docetists and Marcion, Basilides, Valentinus, Saturnilus, et al. All that is required is accessing the literature. Dickie birdie (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Problems With Using Voorst as a Source In This Context
Since Robert_E._Van_Voorst is a theologian, and not a historian, it is problematic to use him as a source for this material, which deals specifically with the historical validity of the Jesus character. Being a theologian, his views are most certainly biased in this regard, and we should consider using more neutral and scholarly texts (published by major Universities) as sources to use instead. Spirit469 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- So I've reverted your change of the van Voorst claim. The change you made created a statement which wasn't sourced, whereas the one before was sourced to van Voorst. Now you say that Voorst cannot be used as a source. Obviously other editors here disagree. Perhaps you can explain clearly why you think he cannot be used. You identified a few things: he is not an historian, he is a theologian and thus most certainly biased, it is not neutral enough, it is not scholarly enough, it is not published by a major university.
- The requirement that a source be published by a major university, is not one with which I agree. This would mean anything solely published by Wiley-Blackwell, Walter de Gruyter, etc. would be excluded. I think systematically excluding them would be a mistake as these publishers have similar editorial practicses to the major university press, and so there is no reason to exclude them. And works which are widely discussed for this topic would be excluded as a result. For example, Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman would be excluded, because it is solely published by HarperOne. In fact, no books of the proponents of the Christ Myth Theory could be cited at all, because none of them are published by any university presses let alone major ones.
- I think it is scholarly enough and neutral enough. That's why scholars have given the book good reviews. For example: Helen Bond (University of Edinburgh), The Expository Times (April 2000), 111 (7), p. 238; Eugene O. Bowser (University of Northern Colorado), Library Journal 125.9 (May 15, 2000), p. 100; Barbara Spensley (University of Leeds), Novum Testamentum, Vol. 44, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 2002), p. 186. Also, the statement is corroborated by other scholarly sources. Note though that these journals are not published by major universities, so you may not take them seriously. Novum Testamentum is published by Brill Publishers. The Expository Times is published by Sage Publications. The Library Journal is a more complex case.
- I'm not convinced that he is most certainly biased because he is a theologian. If he is biased, then I wouldn't expect him to receive those good reviews.
- Finally, I think he is an historian. The book is clearly a history book because in it the author is looking at historical sources and trying to reach historical conclusions. The book is also listed as "history" by journals and libraries. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Probably worth mentioning that Richard Carrier has said several times that Van Voorst is the best available treatment of the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "I was eagerly hoping for a book I could recommend as the best case for historicity (but alas, that title stays with the inadequate but nevertheless competent, if not always correct, treatment in Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus)." (Ehrman on Jesus: A Failure of Facts and Logic Carrier's blog) So Carrier does not says that Van Voorst is the "best" but rather Van Voorst is "inadequate but nevertheless competent".--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Problematic edits to lead
User:Wickorama has been making edits to the lead that I think are highly problematic: first, repeatedly inserting the information that Van Voorst is a theologian and pastor (), which is clearly meant to call into question the reliability of his statement that the CMT has no academic acceptance. Second, he has been expanding the lead to say that there are no contemporary documentary sources (), which is clearly meant to support the truth of the CMT. The basic problem here is that the lead is not supposed to be a place where the CMT is debated--it's supposed to be a description of the CMT, which includes the information that it has no academic acceptance. Wickorama's changes make the lead argumentative rather than descriptive, and reduce the value of the the text to the reader. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Van Voorst really seems to irk some people. I've tried replacing his overview of the scholarly consensus with the more stilted (but otherwise pretty much the same) views from Ehrman and Casey, since they are both atheists, and maybe the argumenta ad homines will stop. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we should remove Van Voorst. Perhaps have Van Voorst, Ehrman, and Casey together. I also don't think the article should note *anyone's* religious affiliation. When editors and readers are choosing sources based on their religious beliefs, they are perpetrating religious bigotry. The appropriate criterion for using a source is whether they're regarded as an expert on a subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think Van Voorst should be removed either. Perhaps the quote from classical historian Michael Grant used in the main Jesus article could be added " Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary" although we had to fight for months with an editor who kept taking it out on the grounds that it was out of date. However, as far as I know Michael Grant is the most recent secular historian, not a professor of religious studies or the NT or self-published author or blogger or so on, to consider the question "did Jesus exist?" Thank you Akhilleus for dealing with the problematic edits.Smeat75 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we should remove Van Voorst. Perhaps have Van Voorst, Ehrman, and Casey together. I also don't think the article should note *anyone's* religious affiliation. When editors and readers are choosing sources based on their religious beliefs, they are perpetrating religious bigotry. The appropriate criterion for using a source is whether they're regarded as an expert on a subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
False statement about Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" removed
The passage which was recently inserted in the section "Other contemporary writers" - In 2012, Bart D. Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. While his conclusion was that he did, this book is significant with regard to the Christ Myth Theory, because for the first time a book authored by a believer in the historical existence of Jesus acknowledged the Christ Myth Theory is incorrect and I have removed it. Classical historian Michael Grant (the use of the word "believer" in this context is inappropriate) wrote a book in 1977 "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" in which he termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an "extreme view." He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: "if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." These positions have been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the critics "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.Smeat75 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The Christ Myth theory has been "acknowledged" by those who disagree with it ever since it was formulated. Paul B (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just noticed that I forgot to sign my comment above, so I added my signature, which is why my comment has a later timestamp than Paul B's reply.Smeat75 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- The believers sure do like to crow victory. But in any event, I eliminated the reference. If you want to say it wasn't the first to acknowledge the Christ Myth Theory than it is not a Christ Myth Theory book and should only be used for the quotes you all love where Ehrman proclaims that no one teaching at a divinity school or in a religious studies program says that Christ is a myth. Wickorama (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- This article is titled "Christ Myth Theory", not "Proponents of the Christ Myth Theory" or "Arguments in Favour of the Christ Myth Theory." It is not an article to push the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus, it should include both notable proponents and scholars who have refuted the idea. I put back the van Voorst quote that was in the lead that Wickorama removed,not in the lead but later in the article, he took it out, I put in the Michael Grant quote above, he took it out, I put in a quote from John Dominic Crossan, he took it out, with edit summaries that say they do not belong in the article because they are not "believers" in the Christ myth theory. This is unacceptable to me, the article is now not neutral, I am not going to edit war about it but I am not going to accept it either. I would like to hear what other editors think and I am tagging the article with "neutrality disputed".Smeat75 (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- It has two blanket statements from two different people saying it is complete bunk and has been proven wrong and nobody that's anybody believes it, and the one's that do are extremists. What more could there be to add to that in terms of an opposing view. It was stated previously in this talk page, that it is legitimate to make an appeal to authority on this article by quoting Erhman and others about how nobody teaching believes the Christ Myth Theory. This was said to be a function of Misplaced Pages - to show what scholars think on the matter. Those two paragraphs in the front can be added to if you want to "show what Religious studies scholars think" with regard to the theory if you want to add addition "what Religious studies scholars think" quotes. But I don't article the article for Christ Myth Theory (or any other article) is a place for editors who believe in alternative theories to try and debunk the subject matter in the article. The Historicity of Jesus article has a small section on the Christ Myth Theory. If you want to talk about people who believe Jesus existed, make a separate section like that and title it "Historicity of Jesus Theory". Wickorama (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Another attempt to obfuscate the fringe nature of the CMT. I think all of the above references put in by Smeat75 and removed by Wickorama should be restored. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- You already have two quotes in the article from two people saying no one of any substance believes it, that it is the view of extremists, and that it is "demonstrably false". What exactly more than that do you want? This is not the place to try and prove the Christ Myth Theory false anymore than the Historicity of Jesus is a place to prove that he is a myth. Two religious studies people are quoted giving an extreme negative view of it show "what scholars think of it". If you need more negativity from professors, add to those paragraphs or make a amall (like Christ Myth Theory section on Historocity of Jesus article) detailing the Historocity of Jesus Theory.
Wickorama (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read Wikorama's above statement several times, and I still can't make any sense of it. Ehrman is an expert who discusses the Christ Myth theory. It's a book that can legitimately be used throughout the article. Paul B (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Erhman, a man with many years of Christian religious training, is already quoted giving the "view of Religious scholars". Erhman's book reference belongs in a list of people who believe in the Historicity of Jesus. The Historicity of Jesus has a section on Myth Theory. If you believers in the Historicity of Jesus want to state on this page that many people believe he existed, over and above the two quotes that already "laugh at" the Christ Myth Theory in the opening part - put a section on Historicity of Jesus Theory and quote Erhman and all the many other believing authors in that section - in the same fashion that the Historicity of Jesus article has a small section in Christ Myth Theory. Wickorama (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Like Paul, I'm struggling to make sense of Wickorama's comment. Ehrman and other scholars who have written about the CMT are the kind of sources that this article needs if it's to have any hope of portraying what actual experts think about this theory. On the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to have paragraphs on Ehrman, Hoffman, et al. in the "contemporary writers" section, because the focus of this article should be on the CMT theorists themselves. This doesn't mean I support what Wickorama is doing, though--he's going through with a wrecking ball, whereas I think some sections should be reworked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- You've already got two quotes from "actual experts" giving a blanket denunciation of the Christ Myth Theory. A total blanket denunciation. A complete and total blanket denunciation. Readlly, what more does there need to be? If you need 1000 denunciations, then make a separate section on the Historicity of Jesus Theory in this article and quote all the believers in it there. Wickorama (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Response to Wickorama at 00:27 above - first of all, it is not really "an appeal to authority" to quote Ehrman and other experts who reject the CMT, it is summarising what reliable sources say. A very important quote, in my opinion, is the one from Michael Grant as he was a very eminent classical historian, not a religious studies professor or such and it is directly relevant to this article as he discusses the CMT, yes the source is now 36 years old, but if anyone else knows a historian of ancient history who has addressed the question since then, please let us know, AFAIK there aren't any. The question of Jesus' existence and those who dispute it is discussed in the Historicity of Jesus article, see . It seems to me that you are asking for this article to be a WP:POVFORK, with one article, Historicity of Jesus, saying he did exist, and another article, this one, saying he did not. That is not allowed on WP, see WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." Since there are far more scholars who dismiss the CMT than support it, this article must make that clear to be WP:NPOV. Would you find it acceptable to have a section with "Criticism of the CMT" or some such title with the Michael Grant quote and others including "Van Voorst, Ehrman, and Casey together" as suggested by editor Akhilleus on this page at 12:03, 11 October 2013?Smeat75 (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I got edit conflicts trying to post my last message, and I see that Wickorama does agree to a section on critics of the CMT, so that is something we can work on.Smeat75 (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I put the quotes I consider essential, Michael Grant, Crossan and van Voorst, into the opening "Historicity" section created by Wickorama, if the article remains stable for a while I will remove the "neutrality disputed" tag.Smeat75 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
References
Why does this article call what are "references" on the other Misplaced Pages articles - Notes? And then adds "References", a list of publications, and then follows that with "Further Reading" a list of publications? Wickorama (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is actually the nearest we have to a standard approach in longer articles, and the best one. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is this a published standard documented by an article? At what point does an article get too long to use a References section for references and then go to Notes section for references? Wickorama (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Recent additions to "Historicity of Jesus" section
Wickorama, you have added various unsourced statements which are more like personal editorialising than parts of a neutral encyclopedia article, for instance Historicity refers to the study of alleged past persons and events to determine if they are historical or mythical - "alleged past persons" is not appropriate unless cited to a WP:RS and also the dichotomy, a "past person" is either historical or mythical needs a reliable source. Also Although all known Christian and secular references to Jesus were written more than a decade after his alleged lifetime, alleged,again, does not belong in there unless you are citing a reliable source which uses that word and that sentence is linking to reliable sources which state that Jesus existed and is clearly intended to cast doubt on their accuracy, ie it is more or less saying "these so-called experts say that Jesus existed, the dummies, even though there are no references to him in his lifetime." It is not appropriate to insert your personal views like that here as it would be if you were writing your own blog. Also I am not really clear why you want that section right at the beginning, it is usual to have a "Criticism" section after the main subject matter has been presented, not before, but in fact according to WP:CRIT The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections" which is what I tried to do but you removed my edits and said they should all be in one section. The lead, by the way, will have to include some statement that the CMT is rejected by mainstream scholarly opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted Wickorama's latests edits; I don't think they're helpful.
- I don't think it's a good idea to have a separate "historicity of Jesus" section, even if the editorializing noted by Smeat75 were fixed. First, the label is wrong--no mainstream scholar studies the historicity of Jesus, they study the historical Jesus. Second, the first major section of the article should be an explanation of the subject of this article, the Christ myth theory. If there's going to be a section explaining why the theory hasn't been accepted by the mainstream, that should be at the end. (I would rather not call this section "criticism", either, because criticism sections are usually ill-considered hodgepodges rather than well-thought out explanations of problems with the article's subject.)
- The most important problem with the current form of the article, though, is that there is no indication in the lead that this is a non-mainstream theory. And that's an essential fact to note about the CMT. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that we should delete the "Historicity" section, and replace it with a section at the end that says "The theory of non-existence does not enjoy much mainstream support, although most of the details in the gospel stories are not considered to be historical either - attach 10 references - see Sources for the Historicity of Jesus for further details." Then we can summarize this section in one line in the lead, and achieve all the needed objectives without unnecessary duplication. Wdford (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wdford, over at the "Historicity of Jesus" talk page I pointed out that your idea of splitting articles according to their point of view is not allowed on WP. Maybe you didn't read it, so here it is again - The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one articleWP:POVSPLIT. You can't stop people adding reliably sourced information and scholarly views, whether for or against, on the Christ Myth Theory to the Christ Myth Theory article.Smeat75 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well then we'll just have to live with all the duplications and overlaps, won't we? Wdford (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Needs mention of Joseph Atwill
and his "Covert Messiah" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.188.4 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Strong myth variant
The article Historicity of Jesus duplicates a lot of what is in this article, but goes even further to make mention of a "strong myth variant". This does not appear to be included here, in the main article on the myth topic. Should it not be added here, for completeness? Wdford (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- No. The historicity of Jesus article is confused on this point (as it is on many others). What that article calls the "strong myth variant"--"the notion that Jesus never existed" is the Christ myth theory. If anything, the section in historicity of Jesus needs to be rewritten. (Although as i believe you know, I don't see a rationale for that article to exist in the first place. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I will summarize this section at the Historicity of Jesus article accordingly. If we can trim that article down far enough, it will eventually make sense to merge what remains into something else. Wdford (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, while generally the Christ myth concerns itself with the idea that Jesus didn't exist as a human being (per Price's "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus" in his 2012 The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems pg 387-8) there are variants that simply deny 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" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History?) so I understand this whole strong vs weak myth argument. It is just that the majority of the Christ Myth materila deals with the Jesus didn't exist as a human being side of the concept.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I will summarize this section at the Historicity of Jesus article accordingly. If we can trim that article down far enough, it will eventually make sense to merge what remains into something else. Wdford (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality tag
Would somebody please explain why there is a neutrality tag here, and what exactly the problem is perceived to be, so that we can address it? Wdford (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have not followed the details, but there is a comment at "13:02, 19 October 2013" above that has some hints; it looks like the tag was added four days earlier. I suggest the tag be removed if no explanation arrives soon. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I put that tag on the article at a point when the lead did not mention that mainstream historians do not question that Jesus existed and the quote from Michael Grant, the last classical historian as far as I know to address the matter, had been removed along with the quote from Crossan. Now that these have been restored, I will remove the tag, since I am the one who put it on.Smeat75 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
One reason to question the neutrality of the article is that the first 4 sources in the lede--forming the basis and introduction of the concept--come from one critic (Van Voorst). I doubt the article Jesus could be introduced primarily by Satanist sources. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- One sentence I find very objectionable is the following Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. The reason I find this objectionable is that I believe this overstates the case and leads casual readers to conclude that this is a matter that is studied by ancient historians in general. This is misleading, because with very few exceptions, those who have studied the question are NT scholars. In addition, most NT scholars are Christians or former Christians and the problem of bias is widely acknowledged, both inside and outside the field. What we can and should say is that most NT scholars are dismissive of the theory and perhaps that very few if any historians in general support it. This is not a question that has been examined by "most scholars of antiquity", and the article should not imply it has been. There is no reason to insist on a verbatim quotation from one of the sources if it's unattributed, but if we do want to have one, Grant's formulation is much preferable to that of Ehrman. I would prefer attributed quotations as we have now, in which case they should of course be verbatim. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, the wording "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted" echoes closely Van Voorst's statement "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted". The only problem I see here is one of attribution--it needs to be clearer that this wording (which I think should be restored) is a quote. (Also, it seems that our article quotes Van Voorst inaccurately--there should be a "the" in there before "non-existence".) This statement is echoed by Ehrman and Stanton (both quoted in footnotes). Graeme Clarke, a classical historian not quoted in our article, has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."
- Now, I'm not attached to any particular wording, as long as the article makes it clear that this theory has no significant acceptance in academia, meaning not just New Testament studies, but ancient history--as I have said many times, any straightforward application of the methods usually employed in studying ancient history would tell us not only that Jesus existed, but that we can figure out something about what he did and thought. In fact, ancient historians such as Michael Grant have told us exactly that! I find it odd that editors are so determined to dismiss the specific statements of our sources that ancient historians don't doubt the historicity of Jesus, as if their judgment trumps that of reliable sources. I find it even stranger that this is an issue worth slapping a NPOV tag on the article over, but I suppose tags are cheap. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can I clarify why the neutrality tag was put back on the article, Mmeijeri? If you would have put it there regardless of "Beyondallmeaning"'s comment, OK, but if you restored it because of that comment, then it should be removed because "Beyondallmeaning" is actually the indefinitely blocked User Strangesad as an SPI has just confirmed .Smeat75 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- I added it because of my own objection, not the previous comment. I do think the previous argument has some merit, though it was needlessly harsh, but it's not something I'm overly worried about. Specifically my objection is to implying that the consensus against the CMT is wider than it is. It is true that it has next to no support in academia, and the article states that, but it is not true that there are many ancient historians who publicly oppose it. Outside NT scholarship the matter is hardly ever discussed. Very few if any ancient historians support the CMT but similarly very few oppose it. There could be many reasons for that, but it's not our job to speculate about that in the body of the text. We should make sure we state the known facts (very little academic support, strong dismissal from NT scholarship, many claims of support beyond NT scholarship, but coming almost exclusively from NT scholarship itself) without implying things that have only been claimed, but not reliably established, are true. We should definitely quote Ehrman's strong claim of support, perhaps in a footnote as now, or perhaps even in the lede, but as an attributed opinion. If we do, we could juxtapose it with Grant's less sweeping statement. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- I understand Mmeijeri's position. Part of the problem is several people called "Christ mythers" were not of the Jesus didn't exist as a human being bent but rather the Gospels story is akin to the stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur and other then telling us Jesus existed (at some time) tells us effectively nothing about the man (Remsburg's "small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" portion of historical myth); G. R. S. Mead and Alvar Ellegård are examples of this.
- I added it because of my own objection, not the previous comment. I do think the previous argument has some merit, though it was needlessly harsh, but it's not something I'm overly worried about. Specifically my objection is to implying that the consensus against the CMT is wider than it is. It is true that it has next to no support in academia, and the article states that, but it is not true that there are many ancient historians who publicly oppose it. Outside NT scholarship the matter is hardly ever discussed. Very few if any ancient historians support the CMT but similarly very few oppose it. There could be many reasons for that, but it's not our job to speculate about that in the body of the text. We should make sure we state the known facts (very little academic support, strong dismissal from NT scholarship, many claims of support beyond NT scholarship, but coming almost exclusively from NT scholarship itself) without implying things that have only been claimed, but not reliably established, are true. We should definitely quote Ehrman's strong claim of support, perhaps in a footnote as now, or perhaps even in the lede, but as an attributed opinion. If we do, we could juxtapose it with Grant's less sweeping statement. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can I clarify why the neutrality tag was put back on the article, Mmeijeri? If you would have put it there regardless of "Beyondallmeaning"'s comment, OK, but if you restored it because of that comment, then it should be removed because "Beyondallmeaning" is actually the indefinitely blocked User Strangesad as an SPI has just confirmed .Smeat75 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- It certainly doesn't help that people who do accept a flesh and blood Jesus in the 1st century are called "Christ Mythers" by their contemplates. Frazer by Schweitzer (1912, 1931) and Wells post Jesus Myth (1996) by Doherty (1999), Price (1999, 2005), Stanton (2002), Carrier (2006), and Eddy-Boyd (2007) are examples of this.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- There does not seem to be any effort being put in to trying to do something so we can take the neutrality tag off this article, so I am going to boldly revert the last paragraph of the lead to a version which in my opinion is more neutral. Currently it says "In recent times the theory has had very few adherents in academia" which carries a strong implication that there are a lot of other adherents in other places beside academia with overtones of negativity towards academia which is not something WP should be doing, academic sources are to be preferred as WP:RSsays - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. The previous version said "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted" and that is an accurate and neutral statement with a lot of references. Then the current version says "With few exceptions, academic study into the historicity of Jesus is confined to New Testament scholarship" - no, this is not sourced to anything and it is just somebody's personal opinion, it should not be there. Are we seriously saying that historians don't bother to study Jesus? Then again the present version says "Most biblical scholars see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted" with the implication that biblical scholars say this but others do not. There is no source for that, please provide a reference for the implication that this is a view supported only by biblical scholars. And the present version omits any reference to classical historians, that is unacceptable in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how you could think the previous version is more neutral than my bold edit. I can see how it might be improved, but I don't think a revert is very helpful, but as I made a Bold move, you're welcome to Revert it so we can Discuss. I don't think the remark about very few adherents in academia is at all suggestive of wider support outside academia, let alone strongly so, but I agree we shouldn't imply anything of the sort. So if there is worry about that, I'll be happy to find a form of words that doesn't. However, as it stands the text suggests something that is patently false, namely that there has been substantive study of the whole issue outside biblical scholarship. I can dig up citations to that effect, but are you seriously suggesting there has been serious study outside biblical scholarship? If you think not, a cn tag would be the proper remedy, not reverting. As for negative overtones against academia, to the degree they are there, they are unintentional. To the degree I'm critical it's because most of the HJ research has not been sufficiently academically rigorous in the eyes of notable scholars both inside and outside the community and we have plenty of citations to that effect.
- I strongly disagree that the "most scholars of antiquity" from Ehrman is neutral, to me it seems like blatant propaganda. We can of course quote Ehrman on this, but with attribution, either speaking for himself or for biblical scholarship. Hardly any scholars of antiquity other than biblical scholars have studied the matter, and it is totally misleading to use a term that suggests a much wider group when in fact a much more accurate term (biblical scholarship) is available. Given the doubts about the academic rigour and worries about bias coming from notable scholars combined with a prima facie case that the claim is blatantly misleading, we cannot allow Ehrman to speak with the voice of Misplaced Pages. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- There does not seem to be any effort being put in to trying to do something so we can take the neutrality tag off this article, so I am going to boldly revert the last paragraph of the lead to a version which in my opinion is more neutral. Currently it says "In recent times the theory has had very few adherents in academia" which carries a strong implication that there are a lot of other adherents in other places beside academia with overtones of negativity towards academia which is not something WP should be doing, academic sources are to be preferred as WP:RSsays - When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. The previous version said "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted" and that is an accurate and neutral statement with a lot of references. Then the current version says "With few exceptions, academic study into the historicity of Jesus is confined to New Testament scholarship" - no, this is not sourced to anything and it is just somebody's personal opinion, it should not be there. Are we seriously saying that historians don't bother to study Jesus? Then again the present version says "Most biblical scholars see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted" with the implication that biblical scholars say this but others do not. There is no source for that, please provide a reference for the implication that this is a view supported only by biblical scholars. And the present version omits any reference to classical historians, that is unacceptable in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Akhilleus above posted a link to a newspaper article which contacted several classical historians and asked them if they had any doubts about the existence of Jesus. The answer was no and Emeritus Professor Graeme Clarke, whose speciality is Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology ] said "I know of no ancient historian (emphasis added) or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." I think WP:ITA is relevant here - Since fringe theories may be obscure topics that few non-adherents write about, there may only be a small number of sources that directly dispute them. Care should be taken not to mislead the reader by implying that, because the claim is actively disputed by only a few, it is otherwise supported. The CMT is not "obscure" but it should not be implied that because few historians have bothered to refute it in print, they have no opinion on the matter, note that Clarke only made that statement because he was asked, if there were classical historians who disagreed with Michael Grant's 1977 assessment of the matter, they would certainly say so. They have not, so it must be taken as the final word, as of now, on the question. I would not have a problem with attributing the "most scholars of antiquity" to Ehrman in the text.Smeat75 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed the newspaper article, thanks for reminding me of it. I'll read it and see if it changes my mind. I'm not sure I'll find a lot of time until and maybe even during the weekend, but I don't think there is enormous time pressure. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- If anything, the phrase "Most biblical scholars see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted..." isn't strong enough. Something like "virtually all scholars dismiss the CMT with contempt" is really more accurate. "Most" can mean 51/49% but in reality, it's something on the order or 99.99/0.01%. However, "as long as the article makes it clear that this theory has no significant acceptance in academia, meaning not just New Testament studies, but ancient history..." as Akhillius has said, I'm good with that. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with your point about contempt, although we probably want to find a more encyclopedic term to describe it. As for 99.9%, I think that's true, and the article should make that clear. The reader shouldn't come away with the impression that there's a majority position and a minority position without realising there is indeed almost unanimity. My main concern is that the reader shouldn't come away with the impression that the issue has seen much serious scholarship outside NT circles either. That concern seems totally compatible with the one you're expressing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Do note that the "effectively refuted" is actually a citation from a reliable source, but by all means let's find a source that lets the reader understand how centemptuously dismissive most biblical scholars are of this issue. As a further side note, AFAIK Grant takes the question of historicity seriously and argues it needs careful scrutiny, it's just that he thinks the issue has been adequately studied and that it is no longer tenable to answer the question in the negative in the light of that study, not because it is obviously false. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Textual Analysis, Aggregate Recovery
Besides the details of historical analysis, evidenciary evaluations for the contemporaneous events, the corruption of the historical record by religious, and Euhemerian apologetics, there is also an important development left unaddressed by this Misplaced Pages article: textual analysis for character. The primary expositor for this was Alan Dundes in "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore ", in which he averred his expert opinion that the canonical gospels feature characteristics common to *oral tales*, implying their failure as journalistic or narrative accounts (being more aligned to folktales and mythology in this evaluation). In *combination* with the lack of contemporaneous confirmation of the events in question, all the more reason is given to align with scholars like Price and atheists in disputing the basis for any Jesus ever to have existed.
With numerous gospels (Jesus stories) recovered during the course of the last few hundred years after attempted destruction by Christians, these (Gnostic, primarily, but some others also; cf. Pagels' "Gnostic Gospels" and others) have also given reason (as featured within the wonderful "Alternative Christs" by Olav Hammer) to set pile of hero stories next to another and weigh them all equally in the face of religious enthusiasm. Doing this, we are left with little to support the Christian convention. By 2200 there will be no scholars with any credibility who think the Jesus character was ever more than fiction. This is also the case for Gautama Buddha, accounts of whom were not put into writing until hundreds of years after his supposed existence, yet the state of historical research and critical thinking at this point in human history is nascent, developing, and in need of an overhaul.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Mid-importance Mythology articles
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees