Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renejs (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 21 January 2015 (→Making the Grant quote more accurate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 15 days

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. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 6, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed February 21, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 3, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 12, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 10, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted June 20, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

Archives

Index Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc. Archive 10: through Dec 2007: more NPOV, fringy-ness (or not), Bauer, etc. Archive 11: through Jan 31 2008: more NPOV, sources, etc. Archive 12: through Mar 18 2008: complaining about Grant quote, etc. Archive 13: through Apr 28 2008: more of the same Archive 14: through May 24 2008: RfC, neutrality, Grant, etc. Archive 15: through Aug 2008: scholarly response, euhemerization, docetism, circular discussion. Archive 16: more summer 2008: scholarly response, fringiness, hand-wringing. Archive 17: August 2008/September 2008 Archive 18: Sept-Dec 2008 Archive 19: Dec 2008-Jan 2009: Remsburg/-erg, etc. Archive 20: Jan 30 2009-Feb 2009 Archive 21: Mar 11 2009: Name and overall theme Archive 22: Mar 31,2009: Overhaul of Intro Archive 23: April-May 2009: issues with chart, misc. Archive 24: May-Nov. 2009

Archives by topic: Definition, FAQ discussions, POV tag, Pseudohistory, Sources

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Deletion of "scholars in Europe" sentence from 3rd paragraph

The sentence currently reads: However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

If it were correct, the sentence would belong better in the Historicity of Jesus article (where it is also found). However, the idea that Europe especially fosters varying views on Jesus is indefensible. A quick review (off the top of my head) brings up the cynic Jesus (Crossan, Mack), the Jewish Jesus (Meier), the revolutionary Jesus (Brandon), the healing Jesus (S. Davies). . . These scholars are all North American and one could easily go on. It has often been noted (on both sides of the Atlantic) that every scholar seemingly has his own "Jesus"--a bedeviling aspect of the field. From the citation, it appears that the original author of the sentence was overly swayed by a recent compilation book ("Is This Not the Carpenter") which has chapters primarily by European scholars. The sentence's final clause is also inane: "there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic." This is what New Testament scholars do all the time. Barring some cogent objection, I will delete the sentence.Renejs (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. I came to the talk page because of the very same sentence. There's no such thing as a 'European' perspective here, scholars everywhere almost unanimously reject the fringe theory that is the topic of this article. It does not have more (or less) scholarly support in Europe than elsewhere.Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There is however a "Copenhagen school" which I believe is even notable in and of itself which seems to be among the primary supporters of the theory of the non-historicity of Jesus. I have found at least two articles on JSTOR which specifically relate to the Copenhagen school in the title. Also, there does seem to be some sort of more broad and I think maybe notable "German school" of history regarding this topic. While I agree the word "certain" probably does not belong here, I can see referencing maybe the two schools if content on them should ever be created. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The statement doesn't say that European scholars are more sympathetic to the CMT, it says (or rather suggests) that among those advocating a new examination of the evidence European scholars are prominent, which is not at all the same thing. I'm not sure that's true either, but if we're objecting to something let's make sure we do so for the right reasons, not out of some knee-jerk anti CMT sentiment. In any event, clearing up the wording might be an improvement. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As John Carter says, there is a 'Copenhagen school', though its prominent spokesperson is American. If it's just the Copenhagen school we're referring to, we should say that, instead of a vague "European". Not sure what "knee-jerk anti CMT sentiment" Martijn Meijering is talking about and it does not appear to add to the discussion. The two problems with the sentence is (1) the term "European" which seems to be WP:OR and (2) portraying it as something new. The Copenhagen school has been around for many decades and always held the same views, while always been seen as fringe by others. In this article, I think mentioning the theories of the Copenhagen school is entirely appropriate, but we should not make it out to be a "European" view nor a "new" view when neither of those claims are correct.Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Copenhagen "School" is certainly notable enough, but I thought they were mainly concerned with OT studies, not NT studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

At least one book of essays I recovered for either this or the Historicity of Jesus article was from the Copenhagen school and specifically dealt with the question of the historicity of Jesus or the possibility of his being some sort of myth. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if we (and the paragraph) are discussing apples and oranges. This article is supposedly about the CMT. But the paragraph under discussion is not about that. It's about the "nearly universal consensus in historical-critical biblical scholarship", "a number of plausible 'Jesuses' that could have existed", and "The two main events agreed upon by most biblical scholars." The thing is, the CMT doesn't espouse any Jesus.

I agree with John (above) in the sense that northern Europe, especially, has long been a bastion of the CMT. I write anecdotally now, but people have told me that the CMT is rampant in Scandinavia among commoners--and it has been so in Russia since their revolution. Thomas Thompson and Lemche (Copenhagen)--though their careers were formed in OT minimalism, are now taking interest in NT "minimalism" or (even) CMT. The minimalists are sympathetic--this includes Philip Davies in the U.K. However, these European minimalists don't seem to want the "mythicist" label (Thompson has strenuously objected to it).

Getting back to the article, though, I wonder if it's not best to just shorten the whole paragraph as follows: "Despite the nearly universal consensus agreement in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived (see Historical Jesus), this article is devoted to the Fringe theory that questions the existence of a historical Jesus." This doesn't get into the historicity issue of who believes in what Jesus, and where. It keeps the focus on the CMT which is a "fringe theory."Renejs (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally non-neutral, totally unacceptable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Totally factual, totally acceptable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I would object to the phrasing as proposed, both because it prejudicially casts judgment on the topic and seems to cast at least all potential theories which might be discussed permanently in the "fringe" category. It is certainly possible, I haven't checked, that a theory that virtually all information about the subject could at least be potentially based on mythic sources, or reflect the content of pre-existing myths, is other than fringe. I am far from sure that such a contention is a fringe theory. Also, regarding the supporters, like I said, there seems to be or at least have been a "German school" associated with Bruno Bauer and others which raised these questions in historical times. While they may not be current, understandably, considering they the founders were basically 19th century individuals, I am far from sure that the theories at that time were fringe theories, and implying otherwise might be problematic. John Carter (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, the word "fringe" definitely has a pejorative overtone, but also a scientific basis (ultimately on statistical grounds). We're obviously divided. Maybe one of you wants to submit this page to the Wiki Noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard) for opinion. My main point, though, in editing this 3rd paragraph of the article is not the "fringe" aspect but to place focus of the page on the CMT--which is lost everywhere else.

If you look at the "Categories" at the bottom of the article, "Fringe theory", "Denialism", etc. are not there. So, maybe we should just keep it that way and leave "fringe" out.

But I suggest keeping the last sentence of par. 3 as it presently reads (about the baptism and Pilate). This in accordance with what the Wiki guidelines say: "Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories).

So, after all this, the following paragraph results: "The two main events agreed upon by most biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Despite the near universal consensus agreement in historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, however (see Historical Jesus), this article is devoted to the theory that questions the existence of a historical Jesus."

How's that?Renejs (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks better to me, but I don't think it's an improvement over what we have. The lede and the article itself already make it abundantly clear that this view is held only by a tiny minority of scholars and is strongly opposed by the vast majority. If the concern is over the phrase "particularly in Europe", why not just delete that then? It might actually be true however, so maybe it would be better to add a "citation needed" tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin, did you miss my comment above? (See first entry in this section). This sentence has problems. It is inaccurate and the last part is inane. It does not add "context" like the one on John the Baptist/Pilate or the sentence on "near universal consensus." It seems to me like a historicist intrusion into this article.Renejs (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We have previously concluded that the main proponents of the CMT don't all agree on what the CMT is, and some of the major positions do accept that a real human might have been the basis for the Jesus stories, so we need to tread carefully here. While people like Carrier are much different to the mainstream, many other CMT views are so close to the mainstream that they are hardly distinguishable. I would suggest that we only change the middle sentence, to read "However other scholars state that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus." This is factually correct, neutral and simple, yes? Wdford (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me how that is an improvement. In fact, it leaves out the important point that a few scholars have called for a reexamination of the issue, so it looks like the opposite of an improvement to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

While nnot disagreeing that some scholars have called for a reexamination of the issue, unfortunately, that isn't that necessarily significant. Erich von Daniken in his early books made a point of having his primary statement be something along "these issues require further study". It's a fairly obvious and easy attempt at hedging, insinuation and misdirection, and has fairly regularly been used as a support of weak arguments . While I am not disagreeing that the issue might merit further study, because pretty much everything merits further study, it would be helpful if we were to say that to say specifically what they think most worthy and demanding of further study. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, von Däniken isn't regarded as a serious scholar, and in the case of the CMT we have several respectable sources saying the idea deserves more attention, so the cases aren't identical. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn and find your sentence confusing. Are not the "other scholars" the same ones who maintain "a nearly universal consensus"?Renejs (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a denialist fringe theory, that is about as mainstream in historical Jesus studies as young-earth creationism is in mainstream biology. Misplaced Pages's tone regarding both should be the same.--TMD Talk Page. 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

1) You don't get to make that call, several reliable sources take it seriously and say it deserves more scrutiny, 2) HJ studies is not the only relevant field as regards the CMT and 3) the field of HJ studies itself has been criticised for a lack of impartiality and a lack of proper scholarly methodology, as have the overlapping but distinct wider fields of theology and religious studies, so they do not deserve the deference we give to a hard scientific discipline like biology. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I side with Martijn here. It doesn't matter how mainstream or not the CMT is, because this article is devoted to (and needs to be focused on) the CMT. That is not negotiable. And that gets back to removing the sentence about views on different sorts of Jesus. Let's face it, there are lots of those views everywhere.Renejs (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly IS a denialist fringe theory (see the reference section below). The fact that there are a few RS's that claim the CMT requires more scrutiny is irrelevant to its fringe status. Even proponents of the CMT recognize that (once again, see reference section below). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I find your comment irrelevant (and wrong). Once again, Wiki has an article on CMT, and that's not negociable. Like it or not, we're here to talk about the CMT. It's not good enough to slap labels on it, like "denialist" and "fringe." Besides, the former label is untenable. If you're familiar with the voluminous writings of many mythicists you know that they don't just deny but often carefully reason things out--sometimes quite meticulously.Renejs (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read any of the citations below? Even proponents of the CMT recognize its fringe status. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Bill the Cat 7 is absolutely right. Not only can we describe CMT as a fringe theory, we must do it under Misplaced Pages's policies. Of course we should have this article, and nobody is contesting that. However, Misplaced Pages's policies are very clear: articles on fringe theories can exist, but must make clear that the theory in question is a fringe theory. Even in Scandinavia which, as said above, is probably the place where CMT is most popular, actual historians (as opposed to laymen) disregard it completely. Commenting on it quite recently, Professor Dick Harrison dismissed CMT as nothing but a "conspiracy theory". We should have this article, and any article of this kind must make clear that it deals with a fringe theory. It goes for holocaust denial and creationism and it goes for CMT as well. The fact that a rare academic can be found to lend some support to any of these theories does not change anything (and that, again, is Misplaced Pages policy, not my opinion).Jeppiz (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fringe is not the same as a minority view, even if it is held only by a tiny minority. Fringe is things like alien abductions etc. Harrison is an interesting find though, one of very few real historians who have commented on the issue, and I think we should cite his opinion. Nevertheless it remains his opinion, and several respectable sources disagree. We should therefore report the controversy, and not decide it for ourselves. We could add wording like "most scholars are dismissive of the CMT, some scathingly so. The historian Dick Harrison has dismissed the CMT as "nothing but a conspiracy theory". Others have recently have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic." Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this. The Misplaced Pages category of Category:Fringe theory doesn't mean fringe in the pejorative alien abductions sense, it is a wider category that also includes views held only by a tiny minority of scholars. The page for the category makes this clear, and I've just made a Bold edit that makes it even clearer. There are subcategories for things like pseudoscience. I think it is clear that our article belongs in the fringe category, though not in the pseudoscience or pseudohistory subcategories. And even there we have to realise that some of the wilder theories proposed by some of the less serious authors probably do belong in those subcategories. Now, before anyone feels the urge to add the tag back in and thus continue the edit-war, let's remember that WP:BRD urges us to reach a WP:CONSENSUS first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, however, I regret the repetition of the claim that more research needs to be done without some sort of indication as to what that research and debate should be about. Like I said before, in virtually every field of history, there are those who disagree with the academic consensus. In most of those cases, they tend to say "we're right, they're wrong" and imply something to the effect of "if they just agreed with us, ..." which in academic language often gets translated to "there needs to be more research and debate." It would help a lot if there were some indication as to what sort of information that research and debate should be about. In an extreme, fictitious, example, where, for instance, we have one surviving signature attributed to a person, which 90% of academia agrees looks valid but 10% who say the person or event signed about didn't happen, there will also be claims that "there needs to be more research (or discovery of data) and debate." Unfortunately, in that example, the only thing to debate is the signature which might be considered reasonable by those who examined it. It would help a lot if, instead of just saying the dissidents say there needs to be more research and debate, we were able to point toward specific extant evidence or topics which they say most merits research and debate. Otherwise, like with the fictitious signature example, it can come across as just people saying "I know I'm right, the evidence to support it just hasn't appeared yet," which, basically, is the sort of thing the Lone Gunmen and similar real people have said, and it often gets perceived in much the same way as their claims. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

How should it be described? Let's see how the RS's have desribed it.

• With disdain
• Totally rejected
• Amused contempt
• Equated with the moon being made of green cheese
• Popular with cranks
• Olympian scorn
• Supported by non-respected scholars
• Calling it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.

Conclusion? Indisputably, it's fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That does not necessarily mean that the words "fringe theory" must be used exactly. While I agree that the theory seems to be only currently supported by a very small minority, and even acknowledge the possibility/probability of it being today, in at least some cases, a form of "conspiracy theory" as per the above, I am much less sure that it has always been a fringe theory, as I indicated above, and I think RECENTISM or similar might come into play there. Saying it is a theory which has been supported by only a small minority, and/or rejected by the possibly overwhelming majority, would probably be more informative and thus more useful to the reader than the specific phrase "fringe theory" itself. Pseudohistory might, conceivably, be more useful, if the word or its effective equivalent has been verifiably used in this case, which I don't know one way or another. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that some, perhaps most, of the material written in support of the CMT qualifies as pseudohistory. However, the same is true of much of the stuff written on the historical Jesus, and we have reputable sources inside and outside biblical scholarship to that effect. In any event, in recent years the CMT has mostly been a phenomenon in the popular literature. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment John Carter, I was unclear. I'm not saying we must or should use the exact words "fringe theory" (accurate though they would be), just that we must make sure a reader of this article understands that this article is a fringe theory, meaning a theory that virtually all experts find erroneous. That can certainly be done without using the word "fringe".Jeppiz (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempt #2 from the top. I started this talk section to address a sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the article, and plan to keep coming back to that until we actually get the job done--not necessarily my way, but in a way that some sort of consensus emerges on issues raised in the sentence. Hopefully, "fringe theory" won't hijack us again this time. . .

The sentence as it stands has lots of errors, and I'll mention just a few. First of all, the lack of certainty regarding which historical Jesus goes back a long time. It's not "recent." Secondly, that lack of certainty is not limited to "certain scholars" but is universal, as I already noted above in this discussion. Thirdly, I have to wonder what this sentence is doing in this article, an article which isn't about the variety of different proposed "Jesuses" but about non-belief in any historical Jesus at all.

The sentence would, in my opinion, read much more correctly if it were split into two, roughly as follows: "Scholars have long concluded that, while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which was the historical Jesus. However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently questioned the very existence of a historical Jesus." This is now correct. Jesus mythicism is burgeoning in Northern Europe, Russia, and among the Dutch Radicals. A British New Testament scholar (the late Maurice Casey) wrote earlier this year: "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist" ("Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?" 2014).

OK. I think the CMT sentence under discussion needs to reflect what Casey says. Remember, this isn't about "fringe theory." The proposed amendment above says simply: "However, certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently questioned the very existence of a historical Jesus." Is that simple statement too threatening for some of us?Renejs (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

My one real reservation is to the proposed first sentence of the proposed two sentences, as it is less than clear I think. "number of plausible Jesuses" is really less than clear language. I would think that maybe a more accurate and less possibly unintentionally leading statement might be something along the lines of the following, which is admittedly based on possibly flawed memory and error. But something along the lines of saying that the academic consensus is that Jesus was killed by crucifixion, and that's pretty much all they agree on, and that there are any number of possible theories as to what happened to make that happen, might be longer, but maybe a bit clearer. Also, the proposed first sentence seems to be to me anyway somewhat indicating that the following content would discuss the separate proposals as specific proposals, and I don't know that we want the article to do that. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true

The paragraph citing Robert Grant from 1977 is an obvious place where the CMT article needs *updating.* Grant's views have long been superseded, particularly his flat-out wrong assertion that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." This statement may (arguably) have been correct in 1977, but it is certainly not correct today. Given the more recent accession of Harpur, Brodie, Price, and Carrier (all Ph.D.'s in the field) to the CMT thesis, Grant's assertion is undeniably false--that is, "untenable." Misplaced Pages does not disseminate incorrect information. If someone wishes to defend Grant's 1977 view in 2014/15 please justify "why." Because it is now false, this old view must be deleted.     I am willing to live with Martijn's latest version of the paragraph. However, if someone's reversion retains this particularly false assertion of Grant, then I think we'll have legitimate questions regarding NPOV, objectivity, and will need an Administrator's opinion on what is true and what is false. This doesn't have anything to do with what is mentioned in the preceding section. It has to do with disseminating provably false information in the article.Renejs (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to echo what John Carter said. We do not endorse Grant's view, either then or now, we merely report it. This is a fundamental Misplaced Pages policy that often surprises outsiders. We do not state the WP:TRUTH, we report what reliable sources have to say about it. This is necessary because Misplaced Pages is a) an encyclopedia and therefore doesn't publish original research and b) is edited by a group of both experts and non-experts, open to all. From your posting history, it appears that your edits have been mostly confined to areas related to the CMT and your book. This is what Misplaced Pages policy calls a single purpose account, which is allowed but discouraged. The reason it is discouraged is because it is easy for the goals of an SPA (generally advocacy) to conflict with those of Misplaced Pages. I think you will do all of us, yourself included, a favour if you read up on the relevant policies. Right now you are violating policy by engaging in edit warring, you have several times reinstated controversal edits over the objections of other editors. The recommended procedure is called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a Bold edit, which is fine, someone else Reverted it, which is also fine, and now we need to Discuss it first on this Talk page and try to reach a consensus. Unless and until you obtain a new consensus the status quo should remain. These are longstanding policies and breaking them is likely to lead to a swift block. If you revert your most recent reinsertion and stop edit-warring, I think you'll find people will be willing to work with you to address your concerns. I for one will certainly do so. I think we got off to a bad start, but I suspect that's mainly because you are insufficiently familiar with the relevant policies, and people are objecting both to your edits and your frankly rather flagrant if perhaps unwitting violations of longstanding policies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't have to be deleted. History of most topics is relevant to our articles. While it might be required to say that he said that in 1977, and that it could be used at least to source a statement regarding the then-current and previous status of the field. Also, regretably, the simple holding of Ph.D.'s does not in and of itself make someone a "serious" scholar. Lots of people have Ph.D.'s, even in their own fields, and are still counted as being less than serious. Rupert Sheldrake's theories of plants come to mind here. The real question here probably relates to something that would probably be best addressed, and possibly only addressed, by input of others. While saying nothing against any of the individuals involved, I don't know that the precise distinction between "fringe" and "minority" theories has ever been conclusively worked out here. Having some clear idea as to where to draw the line, particularly in application of policies and guidelines, might be useful. It also might never actually get done, and I tend to think personally the latter is more likely than the former, but requesting clarification on that point might be useful for this topic and maybe at least a few others as well. Also, for claims to be counted "provably" false, there really must be some sort of absolute "proof", and I hope no one takes it the wrong way if I say that the simple publication of something by people with doctorates in their fields "proves" that they are "serious" is logically problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If Grant's view is demonstrably obsolete, then it should not be included in the article. But, Renejs, I think the onus is on you here to do the demonstrating. Could you please provide quotes from the scholars you mention which show that they "postulate the non-historicity of Jesus"? Could you also provide evidence that they are "serious scholars"? I don't think the benchmark needs to be particularly high, but John is correct that having a PhD is not enough in itself. Where have they been published? What posts have they held? How has their work been received? Price, for example, can be counted as a serious scholar, but I'm not sure it has ever been his position that Jesus did not exist. I could be wrong. Please show me that I am. Formerip (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OK.

FormerIP: "If Grant's view is demonstrably obsolete, then it should not be included in the article."

Renejs: You said it.  ;-)

FormerIP: "But, Renejs, I think the onus is on you here to do the demonstrating."

I don't see why the onus should be on me. But no problem. . .

FormerIP: Could you please provide quotes from the scholars you mention which show that they "postulate the non-historicity of Jesus"?

Renejs: Why not just read the Harpur section of the CMT article--right there? It reads: "According to Harpur, in the second or third centuries, the early church created the fictional impression of a literal and historic Jesus and then used forgery and violence to cover up the evidence. Having come to see the scriptures as symbolic allegory of a cosmic truth rather than as inconsistent history, Harpur concludes he has a greater internal connection with the spirit of Christ" (reference citation). If you doubt this is truly Harpur's position, I'm not the person you need to debate. :-) As for Thomas Brodie, he has written regarding Jesus that "He never existed" ("Beyond the Quest of the Historical Jesus", pp. 36, 41, and 198), and: "This shadowed living beauty that we call Jesus Christ is not a specific human being" (ibid. p. 218).

FormerIP: Could you also provide evidence that they are "serious scholars"?

Huh? You want proof that Harpur (Ph.D, former prof of New Testament, best selling Canadian relgious author) is a "serious scholar"? This is too funny. But, OK again. . . Please check the Tom Harpur page. You'll read that "From 1964 to 1971, Harpur was an assistant professor and then a full professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe, and from 1984 to 1987 he was part-time lecturer on the Theology and Praxis of Mass Media course at the Toronto School of Theology in the University of Toronto." Then in the Journalism section of that article you'll read: "Harpur has also written a number of books on religion and theology, ten of which became Canadian bestsellers and two of which were made into TV series for VisionTV. For a time he had his own TV show, Harpur's Heaven and Hell, and has hosted a variety of radio and television programs on the topic of religion, particularly on VisionTV. He has, over the years, been a frequent commentator on religious news events for most of the Canadian networks, especially CBC. In 1996 his bestseller Life After Death about near-death experiences was turned into a 10-episode TV series hosted by Harpur himself. Harpur's 2004 book The Pagan Christ was named the Canadian non-fiction bestseller of the year by the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail." So, yes, I think we can agree that Harpur is a "serious scholar." As for Fr. Thomas Brodie, you could start by reading what's in the CMT article right above the section we're debating. I provide it here: "Irish Dominican priest and theologian Thomas L. Brodie (born 1943) earned his PhD at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome in 1988. He taught Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament in the United States, South Africa and Ireland, and is a co-founder and former director of the Dominican Biblical Institute in Limerick. His bibliography includes scholarly works on subjects such as the Gospel of John, Genesis and the Elijah and Elisha narratives, and his publishers have included Oxford University Press and Sheffield Phoenix Press." For more info, you might read his page (which could use some editing. . . ). Brodie's written about 25 books on the New Testament, and for decades was famous for spending 12+ hours a day at his desk. If he's not a "serious" scholar, then who *is,* pray tell?

FormerIP: "I don't think the benchmark needs to be particularly high, but John is correct that having a PhD is not enough in itself. Where have they been published? What posts have they held? How has their work been received?"

Right. Please see the above. . . ;-)

FormerIP: Price, for example, can be counted as a serious scholar, but I'm not sure it has ever been his position that Jesus did not exist.

Glad to hear you calling Price a "serious scholar," since he has two doctorates. The first sentence of the CMT Price section reads: "American New Testament scholar Robert McNair Price (born 1954) questions the historicity of Jesus in a series of books. . ." He's identified himself as a "Jesus mythicist" at least since the year 2000. So, yes, it has (for a long time) been his position that "Jesus did not exist."Renejs (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I really find the absolute reliance on doctorates as being an indicator of someone being "serious" amusing, but believe that the question as to whether something is "serious" as opposed to controversial or sensationalist or something else is a real one. Carl Sagan was notoriously advocating for years the global cooling position, even though at the time the idea had little if any support beyond himself and a few marginal advocates. Also, it really is more than a bit excessive to reproduce comments made earlier in the thread to respond to them, and, honestly, just more or less takes up unnecessary space.And, regrettably, your rather obvious jump to conclusions regarding Price at the end of your comment above is not supported by the evidence. Questioning the historicity of something is not even remotely the same as actively saying something did not exist, and it is honestly hard for me to think anyone would say otherwise. Also, I think it is incumbent on you to perhaps more clearly acquaint yourself with some of our guidelines and policies, particularly including WP:SYNTH (regarding your conclusion about Price), WP:BURDEN (which indicates that the burden is one someone wishing to make changes, not anyone else), and, possibly, any of our other content policies and guidelines with which you may be less than familiar. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Carter: Questioning the historicity of something is not even remotely the same as actively saying something did not exist, and it is honestly hard for me to think anyone would say otherwise.

Renejs: Maybe I'm too dense to understand this sentence. Would you mind explaining it, and how it weighs on the Grant matter which is the topic of this section?

Carter: Also, I think it is incumbent on you to perhaps more clearly acquaint yourself with some of our guidelines and policies, particularly including WP:SYNTH (regarding your conclusion about Price)

Renejs: You're tossing red herrings my way. It was Martijn Meijering who brought up Price! (Please check it out above before throwing further unconsidered accusations my way). Of course, this is a TALK page and I have the right to respond to what Martijn says--and anyone else--without being crucified. And I'm starting to feel like I'm being unfairly ganged up on here because I'm promoting an unpopular position.Renejs (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between "questioning" and "asserting", which I thought even most children would be able to understand, although, apparently, you are not. And it is frankly laughable to say that asking you to abide by policies and guidelines is inappapropriate. Once again, I very strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, including those I have linked to, as well as WP:AGF, WP:DE, WP:TE, and WP:IDHT. I regret to say that there is absolutely nothing in the above comment which gives me any reason to believe that you are familiar with them in any way, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a second redirection for you, John: the topic of this section is "Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true"--not my (or anyone else's) Wiki familiarization. . .

Are you, T.M. Drew, the Cat 7, or anybody here actually claiming that Grant's 1977 statement of "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" is true more than 35 years later? After Harpur, Brodie, Price, and Carrier have ALL declared publicly for the Jesus myth position? Is anyone of you really claiming THAT? John Carter? Martijn? Drew? Cat 7?

Are any of you really claiming that NOT A SINGLE ONE of those four is a "serious scholar"? Just checking to see where you're coming from. . . Because if you keep reverting, you'll eventually have to put put up the beef. I'm willing to sit back and watch you demonstrate that TODAY "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." Go ahead. . . ;-) I don't think the Wiki administrators want YOU reverting material if you don't have the beef. And the beef is this: 4 serious scholars have now publicly stated that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a person of flesh and blood. That means that Grant's statement of 1977 is NO LONGER TRUE. Simple. Hey, there are a lot more points to tackle in this article. I suggest we move on. . .Renejs (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You are free to move on, in which case the article will stay as it is, without your changes. If you continue your edit-warring that is likely to lead to swift sanctions. The way to improve the article is through building consensus on the Talk page, and using conflict resolution procedures if necessary. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am claiming that no scholar has seriously suggested the Christ Myth theory since the early 20th century. Price and Carrier are regarded as fringe theorists, and do not teach at any university. Again, the Christ Myth theory is about as mainstream as young earth creationism is in biology. Of course one can list defenders of it, but any attempt to suggest its plausibility gives undue weight to it.--TMD Talk Page. 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Several serious scholars have suggested it, or consider it a serious possibility: Ellegard, Wells (although he no longer subscribes to this view), Brodie, Dawkins and a few others. It is notable that none of these are historians, and perhaps notable that none of them are theologians or scholars of religion, but all of them are serious scholars. In that sense Grant's statement is false, but that doesn't matter since we do not state he is right, we merely state that that was his view, which is definitely correct. Note that comparing subjects of marginal academic respectability like theology and/or religious studies to a hard science like evolutionary biology is unjustified. The former do not deserve the deference we accord the latter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree completely with any assertion that theology deserves any less deference than sciences like chemistry.--TMD Talk Page. 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I refer you to our article on Theology and specifically the sections Theology and religious studies and Critics of theology as an academic discipline. In addition, the subfield of historical Jesus research has been criticised severely for lack of impartiality and lack of methodological soundness by respected scholars both inside and outside the field. The field of historical Jesus studies arose from attempts to develop a Christology that was acceptable to a post Enlightenment society, which is a religious or ecclesiastical motivation, not a scientific one. The institutions at which it is studied retain strong institutional and financial links to various churches to this day. In my own home town of Leiden, home of the oldest university in the Netherlands, the faculty of Theology has ceased to exist. It was closed down after the newly merged Protestant Church in the Netherlands moved its ministerial training institute to the University of Amsterdam (or maybe the VU University Amsterdam, I'm not sure). After more than 500 years you can no longer study theology in Leiden. All that time it was the link with the church that propped it up. Such a discipline cannot be thought of as being on the same level as a hard science like chemistry. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Renejs has asked me to comment here, but I'll be brief and a bit blunt. The main issue seems to be, I'm afraid, that Renejs is not aware of WP:OR. It's not for any of us to say that Grant or anyone else is obsolete. For the record, contemporary scholars make pretty much the same claims. Ehrman says that "virtually" no serious scholar believe in CMT, which is a modification of Grant. I'm also a bit worried that Martijn Meijering continues to beat the same dead horse over and over again by insisting on people like Ellegård (not Ellegard). Ellegård is not a serious scholar in this field, we have been through this time and time again Martijn Meijering and it's quite frankly starting to look like a severe case of refusing to WP:HEAR. It's all the more surprising as Martijn Meijering is in many ways an exemplary and careful user. Some basic Misplaced Pages rules:

• Even in articles dealing with fringe theories like this article, the article should make it clear that the topic is fringe.
  
• It's not for Misplaced Pages editors to name themselves experts and start drawing conclusions not found in sources.
  
• An "serious scholar" in a field is a person who holds a PhD in that field, with peer-reviewed publications. It should be obvious (but apparently it isn't) that a professor with a PhD in Japanese history is a good source for Japanese history but that his PhD in Japanese history does not make him an expert on everything under the sun, he's no more an expert of nuclear fusion than any other person. Same thing here, having a PhD in an unrelated field does not make a person an expert on the historicity of Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a nasty habit of wikilawyering. I hear you all right, I simply disagree with you and your opinion is not normative. Your personal opinion of Ellegard (I don't feel like typing diacritics everytime) doesn't trump that of the editors of scholarly journals, nor does your anecdotal evidence about what Swedish and Danish scholars think. I think your edits are coloured by a - no doubt unconscious - bias. The reason I bring Ellegard up is because of the claim that no serious scholar at all has proposed this, when in reality it's very few who have. It's notable that he isn't a historian, and I've said so many times, so there is no reason to remind me of that, or to pretend I'm not aware of it. I don't believe Ellegard was an authority on the historicity of Jesus, but he certainly was a serious (indeed distinguished) scholar, and his work on the CMT was discussed in scholarly journals. He doesn't seem to have persuaded many other serious scholars, but that is beside the point. I have no desire to overemphasise Ellegard or the CMT, I'm just annoyed by a constant bias against it, smearing the name of serious scholars and persistent inclination to be overly reverential towards a small group of North American scholars from an increasingly marginal discipline, as if they represented the voice of science. I've also never said the CMT was a widely held opinion, I have stated many times that it has very little scholarly support and is often dismissed in scathing terms. And for the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a believer of the CMT. And pray tell, what "field" concerns itself with the CMT? As for beating a dead horse, why don't you tell that to Bill the Cat, whose only contributions here seem to be saying "fringe!" and copy pasting a long list of scholars who oppose the CMT, something that no one here denies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with you on René's WP:OR, as was probably already clear from my earlier comments. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If I am "nasty Wikilawyering", it may be because of constant violations of rules. It does get a bit repetitive to have to repeat the same thing over and over again. My opinion is not normative, true enough. But as your opinion seems to be that any person with a PhD is an expert on any subject there is, no matter how unrelated to their area of expertise, the onus is very much on you to back up that rather un-orthodox view. Would you care to cite the Misplaced Pages policy you feel support that view? To the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me), Ellegård never published anything in any ranked scholarly journal nor was his research any discussed in any ranked scholarly journal. An unranked Swedish journal gave Ellegård some space, but followed it up by statements from a number of people, anyone in a field even close to CMT commenting in that journal rejected Ellegård's hypothesis, and in the more than 20 years that have passed, nothing more has been heard of Ellegård or his idea in any scholarly context. This is beyond just fringe, it's well into raving conspiracy theories. Even "serious scholars" can go totally wrong when dabbing in areas they don't know.Jeppiz (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Serious scholars can certainly go wrong in areas outside their expertise. Indeed they can also go totally wrong in their own fields. It's not my view that anyone with a PhD is an expert on everything, nor even a reliable source on his own field. So we agree so far. It is also not my view that Ellegard was right, I merely object to the dismissive characterisation of people like Ellegard as not being serious scholars. If you actually read his theory, I think you'll see it is a serious contribution to the subject. A serious scholar proposed a radical thesis, and ended up not convincing other scholars. It happens all the time, it doesn't mean he wasn't a serious scholar or that his thesis was not a serious piece of scholarly work. It just didn't convince any people. Tough luck for Ellegard. The thing that makes it notable is that it caused a stir in Sweden, getting a lot of publicity in the popular press and a limited amount of attention in scholarly publications. Another thing that makes it notable is that Ellegard is one of very few serious CMT proponents (lots of cranks though). This makes it notable in the context of this page, the page on the Historicity of Jesus, and perhaps a few others, but not on pages about NT scholarship in general. There is no suggestion that Ellegard is a prominent NT scholar, or even a NT scholar at all. I'm not sufficiently familiar with journal ranking systems to say anything about the rankings of the publications in question, but I see no reason not to regard them as serious publications. If you want to disqualify them, I'd like to see some evidence and some Misplaced Pages policy that supports your position. You can't just invent your own criteria to dismiss people who say things you don't like (like Ellegard) or which might embarrass you or NT scholarship (like Akenson or Gary Habermas, each in their radically different ways). Anyway, my point is that we should report the controversy as it is, and not add pejorative qualifications of our own. As it happens, the controversy is very lop-sided already, so I don't understand why anyone still wants to pile on criticism. Saying the CMT has very little scholarly support and is routinely dismissed in scathing terms by serious scholars is fair and objective. Saying no serious scholar has proposed it is partisan sniping. That's all I'm saying. Do you disagree with that? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We agree on a number of things. I also think saying "no serious scholar" is wrong, and has never suggested it. While I think Price, for instance, is fringe (in the meaning "tiny minority", nothing pejorative), I think he's a serious scholar. I also agree we should not add pejorative qualifications on our own, but please keep in mind we should add no qualifications whatsoever. By calling Ellegård a "serious scholar", you add such a qualification. What is more, every reader who reads it will of course think that Ellegård was a serious scholar of the field in question, which isn't the case. "Serious scholar" isn't a title. My academic record is comparable to Ellegård's, but that does not make me an expert on this field nor on any other field outside my area of competence. The same applies to Ellegård and to any other scholar. Pointing out that somebody is a "serious scholar" in a field completely unrelated to their scholarship is misleading. Can I also say, as a Swede, that I'm a bit surprised by your claim that Ellegård caused a stir in Sweden and got lots of publicity in Swedish media. Even though I read the four major Swedish newspapers daily and have done so for close to 30 years, in addition to watching the Swedish news, I had never even heard of Ellegård before you dug him up. That's not to say there cannot have been an article sometimes, but the "stir" and "lot of publicity in the popular press" would seem to be your own additions, just like the "serious scholar" epithet.Jeppiz (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that clarification. I agree we shouldn't explicitly bestow the epithet serious scholar on Ellegard. Just as we shouldn't engage in partisan sniping, we shouldn't engage in handing out praise either. I merely meant we shouldn't say that no serious scholar has proposed the CMT. It appears we agree more than I thought! We could, and perhaps should, state that several scholars have dismissed the CMT as mainly the work of unserious scholars.

I take note of your report that Ellegard isn't all that well-known in Sweden. My stir comment was based on something I read, not my own interpretation, but I don't recall exactly where. I could try to dig it up, but I don't think it matters all that much. In any event, these were just talk page comments, I'm not proposing we add the word stir to the article itself, just explaining why I believe Ellegard's inclusion in the article is justified. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, and I seem to detect some movement. With surprise I find both Martijn and Jeppiz in agreement with me on the specific issue at hand: that Grant's "no serious scholar" statement is "wrong." In fact, that's ALL I'm saying here. Because Grant's 1977 statement is now wrong, it has no place in this 2015 article. I feel no choice but to continue to revert to the accepted limit of 3x per day until we either hash this out or resort to arbitration on this issue which is very clear to me.Renejs (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You think you have no choice to revert? You are engaging in blatant edit-warring which is *forbidden* by Misplaced Pages policy. Specifically you have broken the three revert rule, which makes you liable to a direct block by any administrator. You are relying on the good will of editors here not to seek immediate action, and run the risk of an administrator acting of his own accord. If you want to prevent this, you should immediately self-revert and state your commitment to abide by the rules. It may not be enough to avoid a block, but it's the best course of action open to you now. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a very irregular reader of this page. Now I just feel like adding a remark, surely not planning to fight here for anything personally. I always felt that closing this article with this quote by Grant from 1977 is very inappropriate, already from a simple view of chronology. I fully understand people like Renejs who try to make the article more sensible (at least) in this respect.

I can add that as a wikipedia reader I would think that Grant had himself carefully explored the arguments of so called mythicists (until his time, which is almost forty years ago) and had demonstrated that their authors violate the standard scholarly methods or so ... But this impression seems misleading, as I judge from the below quote by Doherty (which I take from http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesRefut1.htm).

Before giving the quote, I stress that I certainly do not suggest that the wiki-article should contain this quote by Doherty; I just stress that if somebody thinks that the quote by Grant belongs in the article, then (s)he should give enough context so that the reader is not mislead.

But the conviction continues that this work of refutation has long since been completed and scarcely needs revisiting.

A typical example is historian Michael Grant, who in Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (1977), devotes a few paragraphs to the question in an Appendix. There , he says:

“To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

One will note that Grant’s statement about answering and annihilating, and the remark about serious scholars, are in quotes, and are in fact the opinions of previous writers. Clearly, Grant himself has not undertaken his own ‘answer’ to mythicists. Are those quoted writers themselves scholars who have undertaken such a task? In fact, they are not. One referenced writer, Rodney Dunkerley, in his Beyond the Gospels (1957, p.12), devotes a single paragraph to the “fantastic notion” that Jesus did not actually live; its exponents, he says, “have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars,” but since he declares it “impossible to summarize those scholars’ case here,” he is not the source of Grant’s conviction. Nor can that be Oskar Betz, from whose What Do We Know About Jesus? (1968, p.9) Grant takes his second quote. Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.” This ignores many serious presentations of that very idea since Bousset, and evidently relies on defining “serious” as excluding anyone who would dare to undertake such a misguided task.

I wish good luck to all editors who try to give this article an impartial and sensible form.Jelamkorj (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting find. I agree more context is needed, or perhaps the way we quote Grant is necessary. But apart from that, I don't think it changes the essence, since Grant appears to be citing the older views approvingly. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See section 5 above for an abundant list of quotes specifying in no uncertain terms that the CMT is fringe. Some of the quotes are, in fact, from mythicists themselves. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, this has nothing to do with the discussion here, namely, Grant's 1977 statement that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." Please get beyond the "fringe" issue, Cat (which is an entirely different matter!) and focus on the specific statement under contention in this talk section.Renejs (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that you have now officially made 4 reverts, which is breaking the 3RR? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

One additional comment, seeing Bill the Cat's remark. Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/Fringe_theory) defines "A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters.... The term is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative that is roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship. Precise definitions ... are difficult to construct ..." The article about CMT should surely make clear that it is a fringe theory in the sense that it is held by a small group of supporters. But it seems to me that some editors think that the article should also make an impression that any instance of the works that argue that CMT seems to fit best to the historical evidence we have (which includes the works of Price, Brodie, Carrier) should be taken in the above narrower sense. At least this is my impression when seeing that some people defend the idea that the article should close with a quote by Grant. Renejs has just touched on the obvious: Grant's comment (who, in fact, quotes somebody else) is simply obsolete.Jelamkorj (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ending with Grant is not ideal, and a concluding paragraph could be good. The real problem right now, though, is the two SPAs who revert anything that doesn't suit them based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The latest edit war is a case in point. Even though we have a large number of sources for calling this fringe theory that (or even 'conspiracy theory' as some harsher historians call it), the SPAs keep edit-warring and insist oon this talk page to continue to edit-war.Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to ask in the light of Carrier's 2014 peer reviewed scholarly published work On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt does Grant's now nearly 40 year old statement really have relevance? More over, there is no evidence Grant's original 1977 Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels Scribner was peer reviewed. Heck, we don't even know which division of Scribner even published it in 1977. Finally, given the level of prominence wikipedia gives to peer review scholarly published works shouldn't quotes form Carrier's work have a higher priority?--216.223.234.97 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant was a much more prominent scholar than Carrier, and unlike Carrier he was not as far as I know a religious/atheist advocate, nor was he espousing a minority view. On the other hand, Carrier's work is more recent. But I don't think we have to choose between them, we should have both. The Grant quote is in the criticism section, and Carrier doesn't belong in that section. We cannot offer selective rebuttals to authors we don't like, and I don't think we shold have them at all in a criticism section. We could have a section dedicated to the debate to the degree there has been one, but we'd need reliable sources for that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued POV-pushing and edit-warring

Unfortunately Renejs and Gekritzl continue their relentless edit-warring and POV-pushing. Renejs at least has the decency to discuss, but is a dedicated WP:SPA who is on Misplaced Pages only to push their POV about CMT and even states openly they will continue to edit war regardless of consensus. Gekritzl is a disruptive user altogether who never engages in any discussion, but is relentless in edit-warring against consensus combined with active WP:CANVASSing , , , , showing beyond any doubt that the user is WP:NOTHERE to discuss and cooperate with others, but only to push their own POV by any means. This is really getting quite tiresome. If the two users cannot start to work with other users and insist on continuing to edit war to push their "truth" regardless of what most other users and the sources say, their is no way to move the article forward.Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: He might also have a Conflict of Interest. I read on his talk page that he appears to be Rene Salm (or something like that). @Mmeijeri: has warned him about that. Unfortunately, Rene has deleted his talk page and recreated it, so we'll need an Admin to look this up to determine if indeed there is a COI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What is POV about citing authors and using one's judgement to edit an article in good faith? "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." - from Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view. Tell me you have never used your own judgement in editing. You don't own that page, although it seems you would like to. There is almost zero evidence for this Jesus of Nazareth person outside of the Bible claims. And there are well over 100 authors who agree that Christ ACTUAL theory is fringe - nobody wrote of him outside of the Bible until 150 years after his supposed birth. But you know that.Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment sums up almost everything that is wrong with your edits.

• You seem to think WP:NPOV means we should use "neutral" language. It doesn't, if you actually read it NPOV states we should make sure the article is as accurate as possible and reflect the scholarly consensus. Stating that CMT or Holocaust denial or creationism or similar "theories" are almost universally rejected is perfectly in line with NPOV.
  
• You talk about "authors" but nobody cares one bit about "authors". Again you're unaware of Misplaced Pages policies and need to read WP:RS. If the author has a PhD and academic record in the field (and some CMT proponents do, as Renejs and Mmeijering have both pointed out), they should of course be mentioned. As for "authors", that's irrelevant.
  
• You start ranting about the truth again, talking about whether Jesus existed or not. Actually, that's beside the point in the current discussion. What we're discussing is the scholarly consensus, not the WP:TRUTH. The scholarly consensus is that a person named Jesus existed (of course there is no scholarly consensus at all that this person was God or anything of the kind) and that the CMT is a fringe theory. Whether the scholarly consensus is right or wrong is irrelevant in this discussion, as the very same NPOV that you mention require us to qualify a theory as a fringe theory when that is the case.Jeppiz (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's even a debate here. The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that there was a historical Jesus. This clearly places the CMT into fringe area. This isn't a concession of his divinity whatsoever. Many editors here seem unable to make that distinction. Removing that tag really appears to be a WP:POV conflict. I'm not sure it's fair to jump to a WP: NOTHERE claim though. Too many editors, and I've been guilty of it myself, are over zealous to keep religious POV out of articles here such as Young Earth Creationism and Evolution. To honestly consider yourself neutral requires analysis of available data/sources. In this case "fringe theory" is completely applicable. Zarcusian (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you and Jeppiz that the CMT is a fringe theory in the narrower non-pejorative sense (but not in the Grassy Knoll, alien abduction pseudo-science sense, at least not for the variants espoused by the few serious scholars that do support it), and to my mind that is made very clear by our article as it is now. I believe no reasonable person could read the article and come away with the impression the CMT is taken seriously by either historians or biblical scholars, and that is as it should be. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Zarcusian, what I think you're failing to see (and what our article fails to report) is that we are dealing with an issue that only concerns a very narrow academic field. For that reason alone, it's not really appropriate to talk in terms of there being a "fringe" without contextualising. By "fridge theory", we normally think of something that appears to fly in the face of the evidence, or else interpret it in some sort of off-beat way. But that's not what we're talking about here, because there isn't any direct evidence for scholars to examine and differ over. What we are talking about is competing beliefs, one of which has the upper hand among Bible scholars, but none of which has a real empirical advantage (save, arguably, agnosticism on the whole question). NPOV requires us to report on, rather than engage in, the controversy. Putting "this is crap" stickers on the article doesn't really look like it complies with that. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerip, I don't think you've looked at the other articles in the category fringe theory here at Misplaced Pages, they are exactly of this kind, several of them in the very same field. A fringe theory is a theory that is only held by a very limited number of scholars within the field, which is exactly what we're talking about here. As an alternative, we could go with Professor Dick Harrison who calls CMT a "conspiracy theory", which also seems suitable as most proponents of CMT (at least here at Misplaced Pages) seems convinced that there is some great "conspiration of Christians", almost exactly the same kind of conspirational thoughts Holocaust deniers engage in. However, 'conspiracy theory' really is pejorative (accurate as it may be) while 'fringe theory' is perfectly factual as well as supported by a large number of sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not trump sources.Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerip, I'm sorry, but that tag doesn't equate it to being a "pile of crap". It simply places it, correctly, as a minority view with very little credible support. It seems like anything short of DNA evidence won't be satisfactory here. You mention the limited scope of the field of academia that has actually invested time here. That's fine, it may be a narrow field, but within that group the overwhelming consensus is that he existed. In order to remain neutral that is what this article should reflect. Reading the sources for this as opposed to the summarized evidence here makes it even more clear. I'd understand a degree of frustration if a "Denialism" tag was added, but it wasn't at all. At present, the CMT is borderline, but not quite yet, the stuff of conspiracy. By deleting that tag we are, in fact, removing neutrality from this article and introducing a bias. Zarcusian (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

To Do List: Source Verification and Revisions

Use this section to report false, misquoted, and misrepresented citations, and to explain subsequent revisions.

Dougweller has deleted the paragraph on Ralph Ellis, citing 'self published'.

22:00, 13 December 2014‎ Dougweller (→‎Ralph Ellis: self-published fringe author, fails WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE)

However, I note that Atwill is mentioned on this Wiki page, as well as Acharya S. Atwill is self-published via Lightning Source, while Acharya is published through Adventures Unlimited, the same publisher that Ellis uses. Please see Amazon references below. Can we have some consistency in the application of these rules.

http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conspiracy-Greatest-Story-Ever-ebook/dp/B0022NH4OI

http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Conspiracy-Flavian-Signature-ebook/dp/B0059912OA

Tatelyle (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

     Please add new topics at the bottom of the page, not the top. And yes, you're right. A while ago, one WP:SPA decided to add more or less every person who every said something positive about CMT to this page, disregarding both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. It's a bit of a tough call to decide whom to remove, though. I don't think we can argue that everybody who isn't a scholar should be removed, as some CMT proponents are notable even though not scholars. It would be wrong to include them on Jesus but they definitely have their place here. But authors who neither are scholars nor are notable could probably be removed. The idea of the article is to present CMT, not to be an advertising page for unknown self-published authors to push their books.Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

     I (and others with whom I have been communicating about this very biased article) am so sick of reading ad nauseam about how CMT is "fringe" (it was once, as Grant noted in 1977, but is no longer, IMO--read the forthcoming citations and decide for yourself), and the repeated false platitudes of "The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that there was a historical Jesus" (above)--as if there were no other side, or as if that side were not worth any attention at all (then why is there even this page about the CMT?). . .

     Actually, there IS another side, it IS "serious," and it IS endorsed by a growing number of bona fide Ph.D's, including at least half a dozen *in a relevant field* (see Carrier's quote from Aug. 2014). I mean, we do need to dot the i's and cross the t's, don't we, because the bar seems to be getting higher and higher for what "serious" means (sort of like moving the goal posts). . .

     So, I am uploading to this Talk page a list of CMT proponents, in precisely the same format that was done above in section 4. The list, incidentally, could be extended to much greater length. . . As a reminder--PRECISELY as with the section 4 above--it is "for reference only" and the warning at the top of the page specifies: "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." I trust *everyone* here will accord this list of additional information the very same 'hands off' attitude that I and others accord the list in section 4 above. Thank you.Renejs (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT

Rebuttal and reminder of WP:COI

As Renejs continue to push for how the article should look, I must emphasize what Martijn Meijering already said about WP:COI. There is a section about Rene in this article, and Rene publishes about CMT so portraying it as an established theory is in his interest. We are very far into WP:COI here.
As for the long list that Rene has posted, I must say it strikes me as very weak.

• There are a large number of citations from scholars in the field who support CMT, sure, but they are almost all from the same person(s). Twelve(!!) of the quotes are from Robert M. Price. He's a serious scholar, as I think most people agree, but despite giving twelve different citations from him, he is still just one person. As Rene hints that the list is intended to show widespread support for CMT, I must remind him that making it longer by adding a large number of citations from the same persons does not make it more widespread.
  
• There are a number of quotes from people who are indeed scholars, but in totally unrelated fields. We've been through this before, having a PhD does not make us universal experts. My own PhD and academic record may give me some credibility (I hope) when talking about my own field, but it gives me absolutely no extra credibility were I to talk about CMT, or Jesus, or religion or any other field unrelated to my own. The same applies to a number of the PhDs cited by Rene here. They are no doubt competent in their own field, but adding "PhD" or "scholar" to their names when they talk about fields outside their own is downright dishonest (WP:PEA).
  
• Some of the citations by real scholars here acknowledge that CMT exists but without expressing any support for it. Nobody disputes that CMT exists, so I'm not sure what these citations are meant to do except trying to add length once again.
  
• Quite a number are rather dated. Rene himself has argued above that we should disregard Grant as he wrote back in 1977 so it's surprising to see the large number of citations in this list coming from the 1940s, 1930s, even back to the 1880s.
  
• Many citations are from people who "just" are laymen with opinions, and fail WP:RS.
  
• To conclude, it's hard not to get the impression, even when assuming good faith, that the list is made to be "long and impressive" rather than accurate. The same lone scholar cited over and over again, a large number of citations from "people with opinions" failing WP:RS and a large number of very old sources. Personally, I think the strong weaknesses of this list confirms rather than contradicts that CMT is fringe. For any scholarly theory with even a little academic support, it would be enough to list scholars to support him, without having to resort to non-experts and to citations that are 80-130 years old.Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break, Jeppiz. You're POV pushing, as is the whole gist of this discussion. At least half of the citation in section 4 against the CMT should be deleted as being obsolete, rank falsehoods, and empty platitudes without foundation. That's POV pushing big time. STM that the comments by Jeppiz are also a laundry list of POV pushing coming from a hardly "neutral" angle. This can be proven by the simple inability to accept the facts NOW, in 2015. Example: Jeppiz mentions too many old citations in the pro-CMT list. Hey, the anti-CMT list has 12 citations before 1950! The pro-CMT list has only 3 (5 if you include Justin Martyr and Ignatius). Also, Jeppiz overlooks that the historicist list has NO current citations (it's last is 2010), while the pro-CMT list has 9! This reliance on old stuff ties in with the astonishing continued insistence on retaining Grant's "no serious scholar" assertion in the article--a benchmark falsehood which Jelamkorj has noted above: "Renejs has just touched on the obvious: Grant's comment (who, in fact, quotes somebody else) is simply obsolete." As for COI, that's a red herring--another excuse to kill the messenger instead of addressing the message. Personal expertise is welcome on Misplaced Pages.Renejs (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, I'm not giving you a break Rene. WP:COI is very clear. Your only activity on Misplaced Pages is pushing your own interests, so both WP:COI and WP:SPA apply. It's absolutely clear that you're not here to construct a Misplaced Pages, but only to push your own theory and perhaps help you sell your books. A few days ago, you even declared loudly that you'd continue to edit war rather than accept a consensus you don't agree with. That has nothing to do with your views, I'd tell Bart Ehrman exactly the same thing. (I'm a bit at a loss as to why you attack me over a list somebody else has posted and that I've never ever commented on, so I'm just ignoring that part). As for the actual topic, nothing has changed. We still have a situation in which almost every scholar in a related field rejects CMT and very little scholarly support for CMT. This is what the rules say, like it or not.

Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Misplaced Pages as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Misplaced Pages is not" rules come into play. Misplaced Pages is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, is strongly discouraged. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to shill on behalf of their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable

(For what it's worth, Rene, I personally disagree with WP:COI and agree with you that personal interest is welcome. That's why I'm discussing here rather than going to ANI. But given your heavy involvement, I think it's relevant to remind you of the policy. I don't make the rules, there are a number of Misplaced Pages rules I don't agree with but I still follow them. And this really is not personal, I find you rather agreeable and I enjoyed reading your book though it didn't persuade me.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant 1977 assertion, edit warring, and refusal to accept up-to-date information

     It is becoming increasingly clear to me that some editors are not open to actual facts which conflict with a Jesus historicist agenda. The canary in the coal mine continues to be Grant's 1977 assertion at the bottom of the "Criticism" section of the article. Multiple editors have pointed out that the "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" is unsustainable in 2015. This has now been amply shown by the uploading of numerous citations to this talk page by 'serious scholars' who endorse the CMT. Those (like Bill the Cat 7, apparently) who still claim that not a single serious scholar is cited on that pro-CMT list are now demonstrably POV pushing.

     Grant's provably obsolete assertion is a roadblock to NPOV because there are those who, relying on it, jump to all sorts of problematic conclusions--including that the CMT is "fringe." That is why Grant's assertion must be corrected or deleted before the "fringe" issue can be seen in proper context. Anyone, in short, who still endorses Grant's assertion is not even in the game--he shows himself not able to deal with the facts. So far, Bill the Cat 7 and T. M. Drew have placed themselves in this unfortunate category by reverting to Grant 1977.

     A possible resolution (please read this carefully): I have not insisted upon deletion of the Grant assertion. I have offered a compromise, namely, the addition of 'balancing' information which qualifies the 1977 statement: "Since then the New Testament scholars Rev. Tom Harpur and Fr. Thomas L. Brodie have endorsed the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a person of flesh and blood. A number of other "Jesus mythicists" have also come forward." This is a middle ground, with something for both sides. I am willing to live with this compromise, and believe Gekritzl and others are too. However, Cat 7, Drew, Jeppiz, Taylor, and others must meet us half way.

     It is rare that a clearly false assertion is insisted upon by multiple Wiki editors. The assertion simply falls on its face before an impartial observer. . . If challenged, I am willing to stand by that assessment and request an impartial review if necessary. The course is clear: if Grant's 1977 assertion continues to be the subject of edit warring, then I will attempt to bring the following Wiki policy into play: "If, despite trying, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule).Renejs (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe in the sense of the category tag merely means that only a tiny number of scholars support the theory, not that the work in question wasn't up to scholarly standards or that it is on the same level as alien abduction theories, though it allows for that possibility too. Do you disagree that only a tiny number of scholars (!= authors) support the CMT? I know only of one or two handfuls of scholars who support it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem--and it's huge--is that 'counting noses' is not at all adequate in this case. It ignores the enormous built-in bias AGAINST the CMT and in favor of the historicist position. Don't doubt it--scholars still routinely lose positions, employment, and reputation over this. . . Thomas Brodie--an extremely capable and well-published scholar--is only the most recent notable example. As soon as his 2012 book came out he was dismissed from all teaching duties and forbidden to publish further. Of course (like other 'mythicists') he waited until near retirement to publish this view. Ever wonder why Price and Carrier can't find jobs in academe? It's certainly not because of their impeccable credentials! There are MANY MORE closet mythicists out there than are willing to stand up and be counted--probably by a factor of 10 or more. So, today, we have a large number that are calling themselves (for safety) "agnostics"--like Avalos, Noll, Davies, Thompson, Lemche, Droge, etc. We all understand: these scholars have families to feed and reputations. Their list is growing by the day. So, it's not good enough to count only the few who have Ph.D's (not like Doherty and Zindler), and who are actually teaching professors (not like Carrier and Price), and who have the courage to openly endorse (in writing which also has been peer-reviewed) the mythicist position. All these 'requirements' reduce the number of actual Jesus mythicists to a point of invisibility. But those requirements are artificially high. The view is much greater.Renejs (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make a difference. Unless the tag is somehow against Misplaced Pages policy, it should be applied to the article because it doesn't care about scholars who might be hiding in the woodwork. It merely indicates there are very few serious scholars which openly support the theory. If you oppose the policy, go start a fundamental discussion on some appropriate Misplaced Pages policy forum, this is not the right place for such discussions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The problem is Grant's 1977 statement: 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.' It's false. Period.Renejs (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Such people (e.g., Thomas B) should lose their teaching positions, since taking such positions is the equivalent of young earth creationist teaching geology or biology. TB maintains that he has held such views for the last 35 or 40 years. If he really felt that way for so long, why did he remain a RC priest? Doesn't sound like a man of integrity. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, Bill, Misplaced Pages isn't a forum for benighted personal opinions. And, yes, Brodie is a man of integrity, If you take the time to read the last chapters of his Beyond you will see that he agonizes over remaining a priest while holding the opinions he has carefully come to know as correct. He does this by redefining "Christ" as an abstraction of perfection. And, by the way, you shouldn't judge people hastily, kiddo, because some day you might be confronted with a mirror...Renejs (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right. It's not a forum for personal opinions. So take your ridiculous theories somewhere else. This is not a place to sell books. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you think the CMT is "ridiculous" demonstrates your astounding POV and that you definitely shouldn't be editing this article.Renejs (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Astounding POV" is something you are guilty of. You are clearly clueless if you think that virtually all scholars don't think the CMT is pure fantasy. It is obvious that you have an overwhelming emotional, as well as a financially-driven, attachment to the CMT proposition, but that is not how Misplaced Pages works. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

About Brodie's integrity: there is nl:Klaas Hendrikse, a Dutch protestant pastor who is openly an atheist. The Dutch Protestant Church discussed his atheism, but he was allowed to preach further inside the church (there is a tradition of "Free-Thinking" Protestantism in the Netherlands). His thesis is that God does not exist, since only things (stuff) exist. He thinks of God as a process which happens through and among the believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bart Ehrman agrees in his book that there are several scholars who have defended the Christ Myth Theory (Price, Thompson, Carrier, Harpur and maybe Doherty and Wells, if they count as Bible scholars). See https://books.google.nl/books?id=hf5Rj8EtsPkC&pg=PT14&dq=bart+ehrman+mythicist+scholars+thompson&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=Q-GpVLC9FoffPYDMgJAP&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?

Should the 1977 statement 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' remain since Tom Harpur Ph.D, Thomas L. Brodie Ph.D and other well-known scholars now publicly endorse the non-historicity of Jesus? Renejs (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's verging on the hilarious that in an article filled with non-experts, the one statement we go after is this one. I think it's correct to say that the statement "no serious scholar" is no longer true. The same goes for old statements by at least 10-15 CMT proponents in the article as well. If we remove Grant (as we can certainly do), I suggest we remove every other dated statement that is not supported by modern scholarship as well.Jeppiz (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz: If the Grant statement is no longer true, than why is it still there? no one--I repeat: no one--has actually said it's true. Bill the Cat, Drew, and Martijn just revert to it--without actually saying it's true. That means something's in play besides the facts. Very bad on Misplaced Pages. . .

     And, yes, there's tons of stuff to be removed from this article (not just CMT proponents). Look at the "Further Reading" section. Practically everything there is from before 1950. . . That really needs updating. Probably a merge with the "Books" section.

     To answer you question: The reason I go after Grant's "no serious scholar" assertion is because you start with the most obvious first. If we can't get THAT obvious humdinger deleted, then there is NO hope whatsoever for this article. I will continue to focus on that falsehood until it is removed permanently--regardless of how long it takes.Renejs (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Solution: attribute the statement: In 1977, Grant wrote "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus". In 2012, Bart Ehrman counted at least two scholars (perhaps more) supporting CMT. . Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement is attributed already. However, we probably need to be more precise, as these appear to be quotes from earlier scholars, not Grant's own words. Also note that the quote actually says "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few". (emphasis added) Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

     You are correct. I have the book in front of me and cite the passage in full:

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.' In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicy 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" (p. 200).

     This is a real hornet's nest, with two embedded quotes. It is not entirely clear from Grant's footnote (no. 13, p. 235) where those two quotes come from, because he cites three authors and writes "etc." Are the authors he cites themselves "serious scholars"? They date (apparently) to 1957 and 1965/71. Do we want this old material now to be our deciding light in 2015?Renejs (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

     This is similar to the "compromise" solution I proposed recently, but it was reverted within hours: "Writing in 1977, Grant also asserted that 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'. Since then the New Testament scholars Rev. Tom Harpur and Fr. Thomas L. Brodie have endorsed the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a person of flesh and blood. A number of other "Jesus mythicists" have also come forward (see preceding section)." What I like about these more detailed versions is that they direct the reader's attention to the change in the CMT which has taken place in the last four decades. In itself, that's a significant point.

     I'm not sure, though, that Bart Ehrman is the best source here. In his book DJE? (pp. 17–19) he notes Robert Price as "the one trained and certified scholar of New Testament that I know of who holds to a mythicist position." This statement was obsolete as soon as the book appeared, because Thomas Brodie also published his "Beyond" in 2012 which proclaims the mythicist position--and Brodie has an STD (Doctor of Sacred Theology) specializing in the New Testament. Also, Ehrman treats Carrier and Harpur in passing, perhaps because Carrier's Ph.D is in history (which some, however, would consider superior to a degree in theology/religious studies), while Harpur only attained an M.A. Going only by credentials, the most distinguished Jesus mythicists at this point in time would have to be Price, Brodie, and Carrier. I'm not sure, however, that credentials should be the only yardstick here. For example, Doherty and G. Wells did a good deal of groundbreaking work, and neither has a Ph.D "in the discipline."Renejs (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

How many CMT-promoting "scholars" teach New Testament at accredited universities? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem lies with the fact that the proposed construction implicitly places the individuals involved as "serious scholars," and I'm not sure the evidence supports that passing description. What would be sought here I think to be described as "serious scholars" would be individuals who have attained a significant degree of academic achievement, either through recognized and well-regarded employment in a relevant academic field or through really consistently, if not uniformly, high regard to their works. I'm not at all sure based on what I've seen to date that any but Price necessarily qualify as such. Having degrees in and of itself does not make anyone a "serious scholar," unfortunately. It might be reasonable to include material describing the qualifications, such as degrees and fields of study for the individuals involved, particularly indicating in which cases the matter of biblical history or similar areas of history with rather poor levels of contemporary reliable history are on of the specific strengths of the individual, and their strengths and the specific, individual, response of other experts in the field, as such is known. Clearly, someone who might be a student of the JFK era, for instance, which has almost literally mountains of contemporary documentation available, might not be particularly in their field of strength when dealing with poorly documented earlier eras. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Bill the Cat's question ("How many") better belongs in a discussion on "fringe." Grant's categorical assertion is invalidated if even a single "serious scholar" espouses the Jesus myth position. Carter mentions Price, which (IMO) is correct, but neither of you mention Brodie. No one in the scholarly world (to my knowledge) has questioned his seriousness. Of course, he doesn't teach anymore (he was fired for his views), but he did found and, for many years, directed the Dominican Biblical Institute.

     Bill mentions "accredited universities," with the implication (I think) that if a scholar doesn't teach (now? in the past?) at such an institution then he's not "serious." I think this is a pretty weak distinction. The Dominican Bibl. Inst. is not such an institution. It's easy to be hyper-critical and keep adding qualifications (raising the bar) until all possible candidates vanish. But would that be NPOV?

     STM that impact in the field (often reflected by positive citations by other "serious scholars"), relevant degrees, and peer-reviewed publications are also factors to be considered regarding a "serious scholar." Price has more "relevant degrees" than practically everybody (in and outside academe), but Brodie has more peer-reviewed publications than Price. Renejs (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

-There has been no input to this section in several days, and I conclude that everyone has had ample opportunity to voice an opinion. Please be advised that I will remove the RfC ("Request for Comment") tag for this section in 24 hours, unless someone voices an objection.

-To review, no one has voiced support for retaining, in 2015, Grant's 1977 assertion that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." Jeppiz voiced an opinion: "I think it's correct to say that the statement "no serious scholar" is no longer true." I concur with this opinion, which is clearly correct and easily demonstrated.

-John Carter raised a point about what constitutes a "serious scholar." No one, however, has suggested that neither Price, nor Brodie, nor Carrier (three CMT proponents with Ph.D's in the field) are not "serious scholars." Therefore Grant's 1977 statement immediately falls.

-It should be reiterated that the additional words "or at any rate very few ” (in Grant's original quote) are NOT in the version mirrored in this Misplaced Pages article. Thus, they are not the 'target of reversion,' the 'status quo,' nor germane to the topic of this specific section.

-It may also be noted that we are not talking here about retaining Grant's statement for retrospective, historical purposes. That would be a separate discussion.Renejs (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The comment should obviously be retained (and corrected) and your blatant edit-warring is unacceptable. Whether Grant's statement is true is utterly irrelevant, just as it is when Robert Price says there probably wasn't a historical Jesus. We don't say either of them is right, we report their views neutrally. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think the article needs a correction of Grant's 1977 statement, why don't you simply propose such a correction? That might be very worthy. . . This is probably not the place to do that, since this section is *only* to determine whether Grant's statement (as carried by the CMT article in the past) is true or false today. It's evident from what you've written that you think it's false. If you feel so strongly about Grant's statement being salvaged, what's stopping you from submitting a "correction" for general discussion?Renejs (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about Grant, though I do believe the quote should stay (but also be made more accurate). What I feel strongly about is your blatant edit-warring. If the quote had been removed according to a consensus, then that would have been something else entirely. But as it is, four or five editors oppose your change and I haven't seen anyone but you support it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC's are generally left open for at least 30 days and are then closed by an uninvolved editor or admin. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC is an informal process (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment). On terminating it, the guidelines state: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment" (emphasis added).Renejs (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Due to lack of continuing comment, RfC terminated by editor per protocol above.Renejs (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Better organization needed

The current structure of the article is a mess, as it's basically just a long list of every person who ever said something that can be interpreted as support of CMT. This list includes everything from serious scholars making a clear case for CMT to self-published non-experts with hilarious conspiracy theories. Sorting them according to century, as we currently do, is hardly optimal. I would suggest that we should instead group them into serious scholars first and then the non-experts who are just laymen with opinion. Under WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, it's even doubtful if the latter group should be in here although some, such as Doherty, is sufficiently notable.Jeppiz (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been meaning to suggest this too. What names should we give to the categories though? Literally naming them "serious scholars" and "conspiracy theorists" doesn't sound terribly neutral. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That is true, would be terribly non-NPOV. Some cases are easy, Price could definitely be under "scholar" while many others could be under the neutral "non-scholars". The problem is those who are scholars but in entirely unrelated fields. Putting them under scholars would be misleading, but calling them non-scholars would not be correct either.Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we could refer to people like Wells as academics/scholars from unrelated fields. It's still going to be difficult to come up with a clear delineation. Where do we put someone like Noll for instance? Non-scholars sounds a bit pejorative, I'd prefer something like popular authors. And if we are going to include any self-published authors, they should probably be identified as such. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get drawn into the edit war here. However, my comments on the organization question are the following:

The list of proponents is fine as is - the article is about the CMT, so including the history of the theory is fine. Notability rules must still apply, like always. Putting them chronologically makes sense as is. Newer scholars taking the CMT position can always be added on the bottom.

The Criticism section needs re-organizing though - I think we should put them into chronological order as well, with emphasis on the most recent of the notable critics. There are scholars more recent than Grant, so we don't really need him - I think he was only added because he is considered to be a "non-Biblical Scholar" - or something.

Why is the list of books in bold - it really dominates the article - is this per a policy of some sort?

Wdford (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As to your last question, Wdford, it might be because some CMT authors are heavily involved in editing the article and it's in their interest to make their books visible. That's one of the reasons I've brought up WP:COI a few times here.Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As an outsider visiting this article, I found it to be preponderously long. I count 31 'notable proponents' of CMT give or take. Are they really all notable? Did they ALL make significant contributions to the theory, or have a significant impact? Many of them seem to just be saying the same things over and over, or being largely overshadowed or ignored in their time period. Honestly it feels like the length of the list is an effort by the CMT camp to claim relevance. I would suggest some heavy trimming, as having the whole list just bogs down the article, and feels WP:UNDUE. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I could support some serious trimming myself. To the extent that some academics have basically produced variations on the same theory, it would to my eyes be reasonable to basically create a separate section for each theory and the individuals and/or works which have put that theory forward. Granted, in some cases, there is some serious overlap among multiple theories, but that concern can probably reasonably be dealt with in discussion. John Carter (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any particular authors you'd like to propose for deletion? I'm not too worried about the length of the article, it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with an encyclopedic treatment in an encyclopedia. I do think it's important to categorise the various authors. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I probably won't myself have access to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? until at least next week, but if that, or any other overview-type sources on the subject, link authors together in their text indicating that the theories are similar, following their lead would be useful. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Regardless of the merits of the case, decisions on Misplaced Pages are made by WP:CONSENSUS, which includes interpretation of the relevant policies by consensus as well. If editors feel a local consensus is misinterpreting policies or applying them incorrectly, there are several conflict resolution procedures. The one thing you're not supposed to do is to engage in edit-warring. Per WP:BRD, any Bold edit may be challenged and the WP:STATUSQUO should remain until a new consensus has been reached on the Talk page. Clearly no consensus has been reached in the case of Renejs's edit. Nevertheless he has at least six times reinserted his edits over the objections of others. This is totally unacceptable, regardless of the merits of his arguments. "But I am right" is not an excuse. You can appeal to a conflict resolution board, but you cannot make controversial changes unilaterally. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to revisit the Misplaced Pages philosophy on editing. The thesis of "change only by consensus" is not Misplaced Pages's but yours. If people waited for consensus on everything, hardly anything would happen and the resulting inertia of this encyclopedia would propel it into the digital (and conservative) Stone Age within a month!

     On the contrary, an editor is, according to Misplaced Pages guidelines, encouraged to be bold: "Misplaced Pages:Be bold (WP:BOLD) can be explained in three words: "Go for it". The Misplaced Pages community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia." And this addition: "Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted."

     So, reversion is part of the process. Your attempt to specifically tag me with edit warring doesn't fly. . . It takes more than one editor to make a 'war'. My reverts were (in most cases) simply reversions of reverts by others--including YOURSELF, Bill the Cat, and Jeppiz (all three of whom have a goodly number of reverts to their names--check the history). And, by the way, I'm not the only one reverting these editors--Gekritzl also. I'm being unfairly singled out here.Renejs (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bold is an important part of the process, and nobody is criticising you for being bold. Bold is good. However, being Bold is only part of the process, other parts include Revert and Discuss, as per WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit, which is fine. Someone else objected and Reverted, which is also fine. Discussion then ensued which is also good. But until you obtain a new consensus, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain. You then made repeated attempts to insert your edits unilaterally, which is not fine at all. The other editors were totally justified in reverting your changes back to the status quo, and you were totally unjustified in repeating your controversial edits over the objections of others. Maybe others were guilty of some edit-warring too, but that doesn't justify your own edit-warring. As for Gekritzl specifically, he was reverting *to* the WP:STATUSQUO, rather than away from it as you are, which means he wasn't edit-warring. You could complain that he doesn't take part in discussions on the Talk page, but on the other hand, discussion is taking place without him, while you are clearly and blatantly violating the rules. And note that Gekritzl and I disagree on the tag. I think the tag is justified, but Gekritzl is right in insisting on a consensus before it is added back. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

     The status quo is not a safe haven when it is obviously and provably false. Such a false status quo can--and should--be reverted a million times if necessary. After all, what's the use of discussing statements which are "obviously and provably false"? No one in this discussion has offered support for the Grant statement--which would mean showing that Price, Brodie, Carrier, etc. are all not "serious scholars." Thus, Grant's statement needs deletion from this article. Period.Renejs (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes the edit warring was clearly disturbing. This page includes a lot of controversial material, and after a few years it was the first time that there was an edit war. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the consensus on the Grant edit? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

     If you have some support to offer the Grant assertion, now is the time to speak up in the RfC section above. The lack of any voiced support is implied consensus, and an obviously and provably false statement cannot be retained in the article simply because one or two editors prefer it that way.

     Look, I recognize that this change represents a seismic shift in thinking for some of us. I am aware! Just the idea that a "serious scholar" could question the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is astonishing for most people and will be fought with every device by some who simply have no "room" for such a frightening concept in their worldview. This will take time. But the change has to happen--because it is now indeed the case, and has been for a few years. Folks, we are in a different world from Robert M. Grant in 1977! That is the colossal shift that we're dealing with here--and we are pioneers.Renejs (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Misplaced Pages to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Misplaced Pages changes to reflect that change. Misplaced Pages primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.

Quoted from WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this.Renejs (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell: This should move to ANI and Rene should be topic-banned from any article related to Jesus. Rene gladly and proudly breaks almost every rule there is (COI, 3RR, BRD etc) and is a heavily POV-pushing spa. We've tried to reason with him but he refuses to hear anyone who does not agree. We're not getting any further here.Jeppiz (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if that weren't necessary. If Renejs reverts his controversial edit and promises to respect the rules, then he doesn't need to be blocked. Otherwise I'd argue for an administrator to revert his edit and block him for thirty days if he tries to reinsert it yet again without consensus, just to show that trying to break the rules is pointless. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I’m a little baffled here. The edit would be controversial if someone gave a *reason* for reinstatement of Grant’s 1977 “no serious scholar” assertion (my “controversial edit”). I’m bending over backwards to give everybody a place to voice a reason for keeping that statement--so that we can indeed put it back in IF THERE’S REASON TO DO SO. That’s actually why I started the RfC section (12) above--precisely to test for such support. But so far no one’s offered any. Thus there’s no controversy--only (I gather) intense grumbling. . . To call for my ‘ban,’ or for reversion to Grant 1977 without a reason is, ISTM, subverting the Wiki protocols. I’m very aware that, ironically, “I’m* the one being accused of such subversion when, ISTM, YOU are!

UPDATE ON THE RfC SECTION ABOVE: So far, the RfC section 12 has comments which can be summarized as follows:

- Jeppiz suggests that the statement ‘no serious scholar’ is “no longer true.”

- Martijn notes that Grant’s statement originally had the words “or at any rate very few ” (important words which, however, are *not* part of the ‘reverting to Status Quo’ wiki version)

- Renejs provides the full text of Grant’s passage, noting two even older ‘embedded’ quotes in it (as Jelamkorj also noted, citing Doherty above).

- John Carter explores the phrase “serious scholar.”

And that’s where we are. . . Nobody has said why we should keep Grant’s 1977 assertion or has even advocated for it. Everybody (tacitly, at least) seems agreed that it’s incorrect--that there is TODAY at least one “serious scholar” who questions the historicity of Jesus. If this is incorrect, please voice your view up in RfC section 12!Renejs (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no it isn't, and it is rather I think perhaps deliberately misrepresentative to say it is. There have been other things discussed as well, sometimes previously, which you have not addressed. In such cases, WP:IDHT might be seen to reasonably apply. I know that I had made a comment about how the source could still be used to indicate the then-current status at the time of that writing, but somehow it seems that discussion along only an either/or proposal is all you are interested in, at least in the RfC. One would expect better from an academic. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I support adding a more precise quote, but not until there is a new consensus for it. My "vote" is in favour of that new consensus. Until then, the status quo version should be restored, just as with the fringe tag, which I also support. If there's a consensus, we can move really quickly. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Towards consensus on updating Grant's 1977 paragraph

In the last section (14) Martijn M. wrote: "I support adding a more precise quote, but not until there is a new consensus for it. My 'vote' is in favour of that new consensus. Until then, the status quo version should be restored, just as with the fringe tag, which I also support. If there's a consensus, we can move really quickly." I find this valuable and would like to concur. The "fringe" tag is a separate discussion. . . As for the "status quo" version of Grant's paragraph, we will have to first break it down into its several components (a lot of work, I'm afraid, but I think we're all capable of this).

The interesting Grant paragraph (at the end of the “Criticism” section of the CMT article) contains (or contained) five sweeping statements which I personally call ‘colossal assertions.’ Some of these assertions (which I’ve labeled to below for reference), are IMO still true today--but some are probably not. I think we need to give our input on these sweeping statements from 1977. Just so you know where I stand (as if you're actually interested ;-), I have added a plus (+) before any statement I think is STILL correct, and a minus (-) before the assertion I think is now false. I humbly invite you to do the same, per your own opinion. . . Grant’s assertions are:

- (a) Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory

-/+ (b) The CMT has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars

- (c) In recent years no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicy of Jesus

+ (d) or at any rate very few.

-/+ (e) and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Final tally: Plus = 2; Minus = 3

Renejs (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Renejs, please would you propose a reworded paragraph to cover the Grant contribution, so that we can discuss it and reach a consensus? Thanks Wdford (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Personally, I would probably remove the Grant paragraph entirely, because I can't see anything in it worth retaining. However, if the consensus chooses to 'update' it, I would vote for the following paragraph which I believe is quite defensible today: "The CMT has been answered by first-rank scholars but not annihilated. Very few “serious scholars” advocate for the CMT today, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the evidence--however fragile--to the contrary."Renejs (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether Grant is right or not doesn't matter, what matters is that he is a reliable source expressing a notable (and widely shared) opinion. We're not reporting his statement in Misplaced Pages voice, we're reporting what his views were. Similarly, when we talk about Price's views, we don't present them as the truth but as Price's views. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked, and you still haven't reverted your controversial edit, and are therefore still edit-warring. If you want to show you are sincere about wanting to reach a consensus, we need to start from the status quo text. Per Misplaced Pages policy we need to do that anyway. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

'Criticism' section should be severely trimmed

I propose to trim the 'Criticism' section to about one paragraph. What's there now is badly written, anyway, the topic is already covered in the main article on the Historicity of Jesus. Darx9url (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Darx9url. Please would you propose a suitably-worded paragraph on the talk page, so that we can discuss it and reach consensus? Wdford (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

We could definitely improve the section. Just keep in mind that as per WP:NPOV, for any minority viewpoint, such as CMT, we must make sure that even a casual reader of the article understands that mainstream scholarship categorically rejects CMT.Jeppiz (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to draw attention to the following: the criticism section should aim to summarize -scholarly arguments- against the methodology of the CMT proponents (like Price, Doherty, Carrier, Brodie).

The expressions like the quotes by Ehrman in the article (including the comment about "six-day creationist getting a job at an academic department of biology") are far from anything academic.

(Imagine that wikipedia would give in the young-earth creationism (YEC) criticism section the following as -arguments- of scholars: the YEC people do not get jobs in academia, some scholars say that YEC theory was annihilated long time ago by first-rank scholars, and that's why it is a fringe theory ... This would be a very strange arguing, wouldn't be.)

If there is a lack of real scholarly arguments against the methodology of CMT-proponents by which they arrive at their conclusions, then this lack should be not replaced in wikipedia by derogatory remarks presented as "voice of science".

As a non-native English speaker, I also do not quite understand the precise meaning of "fringe theory". It should be certainly made clear that CMT stands against the prevalent scholarly view, but the wiki-editors have hardly any substance from academia to try to convey to the casual reader an idea that Price, Doherty, Carrier, Brodie ... use some pseudo-scholarly methods or so for drawing their conclusions.

(Btw, Ehrman also says in his book: "Jesus existed, and those vocal persons who deny it do so not because they have considered the evidence with the dispassionate eye of the historian, but because they have some other agenda that this denial serves." Unfortunately, such remarks tell us something about Ehrman, they have nothing in common with dispassionate scholar arguing with the methodology of Price, Doherty, Carrier, Brodie ....)

I can only hope that dispassionate native-English wiki-editors will give the article a more decent form. Jelamkorj (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As it has been categorized as fringe theory already, at least on the main page, which sort of criticism you would expect to be cleared out? I have always forgot to add one quotation from Voltaire. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The fringe tag was disputed and removed pending a new consensus. Now that I know that the tag doesn't necessarily mean it's Grassy Knoll type nonsense, just that it has very little scholarly support, I have changed my mind. I now believe the tag should be added, but obviously not until we have a new consensus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What, you didn't know The Smoking Man was on the grassy knoll? ;) I agree that the term "fringe" might best be removed from the template in question, and maybe replaced with "minority theory" or something like that. Part of the problem, unfortunately, like I think I said before, I have no really clear idea where the line of differentiation between a "fringe" theory and a "minority" theory lies. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a subcategory for really nutty theories. When in doubt, you could always use the parent category. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Criticism section now looks much better, IMO.

On the last paragraph of that section, the footnote (#212) comes after the words "extreme view" but I've checked Grant's 1977 book and can't find that. Anybody know? The rest of the quotes are on p. 200. So ISTM that the FN is in the wrong place and should be after the word "contrary" with the page number. Also, since the "extreme view" part is not found, maybe somebody can track that down or we should consider a cn tag there.Renejs (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a fringe tag

I'm hoping we can get to a new consensus on the fringe tag (Category:Fringe theory), now that it is clear it doesn't carry an automatic pejorative connotation. Can people list their names below and whether they support or oppose the tag? Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

From the tag page:

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work. Examples of the latter include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth.

Just seeking possible correction, as I think Martijn is referring to Template:Fringe theories and not the Category:Fringe theories. Am I correct in that assumption? John Carter (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was the latter, but I'm not sure. I get the impression the former is for pages that are not dedicated to a fringe theory, but give it an WP:UNDUE amount of attention. I imagine it potentially being used on the Historical Jesus page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: I believe that the template is a temporary measure for specifying something is wrong with the page, namely that it presents a fringe theory as if it were a mainstream theory, while the category is for articles on (notable) fringe theories that properly identify them as such and can therefore remain indefinitely. I'm proposing the latter here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The list of authors who have demonstrated that the Jesus stories are likely fictional is huge. This is not fringe theory. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think only serious academics count for the purposes of the tag / category. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The number of academics is proportionally small, and they are ridiculed by the vast majority of scholars - almost by definition making it a fringe theory. Your argument is very weak. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not correct. In fact, the vast majority of 'serious' New Testament scholars today have concluded that the Jesus biographies (as set forth in the canonical gospels) contain a large amount of fiction (at the very least). Only ultra-conservative scholars still try to argue for the historicity of, say, the so-called 'zombie resurrection' (Mt 27:52–53), the "darkness over the whole land" preceding Jesus' death (Mt 15:33), or the massacre of the innocent babies by Herod following Jesus' alleged birth (Mt 2:16–18). And these are only three examples of many that can be presented to any neutral scientific observer.Renejs (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. It sure is getting difficult to AGF when you insist on peddling obvious falsehoods. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Peddling obvious falsehoods"? That's a pretty strong language, Bill the Cat 7. . . Actually, no serious (that is, scientific) New Testament scholar today believes in the historicity of the zombie resurrection, the slaughter of the innocent babies by Herod, and the "darkness over the whole land" preceding Jesus' death. You're saying that to deny them is an "obvious falsehood"--but your view is ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. Yes, I grant that there still exists a diminishing coterie of faith-based conservative Christian 'scholars' primarily teaching at small Christian colleges throughout the Bible Belt, for whom faith is more important than reason. They will support you. They believe in the zombie resurrection. These are your six-day creationists and anti-evolutionists. I think it's time to call their bluff though--time to say: "You're spreading delusions, absurdities that have no scientific basis."Renejs (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, most NT scholars do not accept those details. That's called the historical Jesus position. Bacchiad (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about a historical jesus. It's a about a fringe theory held by a tiny minority of scholars that virtually all other scholars ridicule. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that Bill's frustration is coming from the fact that you, Renejs, seem to be willfully conflating the argument for a Historical Jesus and the argument for a literal interpretation of the New Testament. This is a problem that User:Jeffro77 has consistently brought up. This article is about the belief that there is no historical Jesus (a fringe position held by a small minority of fringe scholars), not the belief that Jesus did not do what the New Testament says he did (a mainstream view held by most people, including liberal Christians). If you are purposely conflating these two positions in order to confuse the issue, that is extremely counter-productive. If you are legitimately confused, please ask for clarification, and take steps to educate yourself as to the distinction. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No willful conflation of evidence from the HJ article here, Senn. Actually, that never entered my mind. And no confusion here. . . But maybe you're engaging in one of the favorite pastimes of historicity defenders on this talk page: falsely accusing. FYI, in these discussions I try to focus on the verifiable facts available--not on behavior, protocol, AGF, etc--ALL of which have, incidentally, been violated by several users who have recently seen fit to attack me. (The latest example being Bill the Cat 7 who claims to assume good faith--in the same sentence that he imperiously accuses me of "peddling obvious falsehoods." Well, that's not very AGF of him. . !)

I'm trying to do my best to hold people factually accountable for what they write. that's it in a nutshell. And I think the admins will realize this in time. If a user writes something--and especially if he puts it in the article--then he has to be able to defend it factually. No more throwing weight around with vague, highly-loaded language like "peddling obvious falsehoods," or the latest from you, Senn: characterizing the CMT as "a fringe position held by a small minority of fringe scholars." Huh? Aren't you just possibly jumping to a few minor conclusions here. . ? First of all, "fringe" has hardly been decided by consensus, and in fact it seems to be going down (at last count the vote was 6 'support' and 7 'oppose'.) But you use it twice in your characterization: you call the CMT position "fringe" and you also call the scholars who hold it "fringe." So, you're already poisoning the well by jumping to the very conclusion which needs to be argued. And you apparently do this blithely, as a matter of course. Also, your use of the words "small minority" is an evaluation which could bear some scrutiny. Where should we put the growing number of agnostics, for example--scholars who are open/sympathetic to the CMT (like Hector Avalos and the European minimalists)? All I'm saying is: let's be more precise with our language, reduce the rhetoric a little, and do our homework before we mouth off.Renejs (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Rene, this kind of reply illustrates why other editors are finding you hard to get along with. You don't actually address the posts above. Most scholars who hold to Jesus's historicity do not hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. The virgin birth, the resurrection, most or all of the speeches - out the window. It's possible to oppose literalism while not being a mythicist. At least two editors pointed this out to you. But you don't respond to that; instead, you go off on two long paragraphs about other matters, partly ad-hominem. Make it easier for people to work with you, dude. Bacchiad (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems here User:Renejs.

1. You claim that you are trying to focus on verifiable facts (as one should), but you have not demonstrated strong arguments that support your position. When I rebutted your arguments for CMT not being fringe in your "Oppose", you stated "I just gave my opinion," suggesting that you don't have a strong counter-rebuttal to offer. As far as I can see, the arguments that CMT is not a fringe theory carry very little weight.
2. You say that protocol is not important to you. However, there is a strong consensus among the Misplaced Pages community that says we need to follow protocol. We can't just ignore it when it suits us. And in this case, I think that protocol is fairly clearly defined: a theory that is embraced by only a very small portion of academics, while the rest view the theory as ridiculous, should be clearly labeled as a fringe theory. At this point, from what I've seen, the arguments that CMT is fringe strongly outweigh the arguments that it is not fringe. Therefore, the onus is now on you and other CMT sympathizers to demonstrate why we should not add the fringe tag.

   

3. Misplaced Pages is not about the number of votes, as you seem to think, but rather the relative strengths of the arguments given. No, we do not have a consensus, and I strongly suspect that we may have to go to an RfC. But I expect that on an RfC a consensus would be reached to apply the fringe tag to CMT based on the strengths of the arguments given.
4. Lastly, many editors have found you difficult to deal with Renejs. You are correct in stating that WP:AGF is important, but I don't blame Bill for commenting that it is becoming difficult for him to assume good faith. Please try to give arguments higher on the pyramid in this diagram, rather than ad hominem. Thanks. --Sennsationalist (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The evidence for a historical Jesus is so thin that perhaps a fringe tag should be placed on the Jesus of Nazareth page. GMarxx (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR to me. According to most scholars, there is as good evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus as there is for many other ancient historical figures. Also the fringe tag wouldn't really apply to that page. You seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of the purpose of that tag. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Have you got any relevant citations that would describe these theories as fringe theories? Bladesmulti (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. Here you go. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the criterion is that there is hardly any scholarly support for the theory, not that we have reliable sources who say it's a fringe theory (it's different from WP:RS/AC apparently). But as it happens, not only do we have several reliable sources who say there is next to no academic support for it, we only have a handful of scholars who do support it and who themselves agree they are in a tiny minority. In addition, Bill the Cat has supplied a long list of citations that actually say it's a fringe theory. Jeppiz also dug up a quote from Dick Harrison who calls the CMT a "conspiracy theory". Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Need something else, pretty much like what John Carter has suggested above. I also think that this kind of category would make very known authors such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc. a fringe advocate. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the category would make these into advocates of a fringe theory. I've added a link to the tag and quoted some of its text. Do you disagree that going by the text of the tag page, the category should apply? I find it hard to escape that conclusion, the text is pretty clear. If you agree, we should perhaps discuss whether the category itself is legitimate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BM, what else do you need? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Minority theory" would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is such a category, theories that are up the scholarly standard in a field but only supported by a tiny minority of scholars fall under the category, per the definition I quoted above. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Without a clearer distinction between Jesus as a myth and Christ as a myth, this still would not be suitable. Only a third of the world's population are even nominally Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The article already makes this distinction clear, the lede defines the CMT as "the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.". We had a lengthy discussion about this last year, during which we considered many variants. One of the main points of discussion was whether we should make this distinction or not, and we ended up with this definition precisely because we thought the distinction was in fact important. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's also notable that a lot of CMT supporters are fringe themselves, purporting absurd theories over the internet (theories that go beyond rationality). Just because there are some fringe advocates doesn't necessarily make them the face of the theory. They may be the respected and scholarly face of the theory, but it's worth considering the general population that espouses the theory when considering whether it's fringe. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support And as for Dawkins, Hitchens and several others mentioned in the article, let's remember that at one point one user inserted a lot people who are not CMT proponents and cherrypicked statements to make them appear to support it. I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens (with great pleasure) and never seen them say anything that would have made them CMT proponents.Jeppiz (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose In its current form, this article conflates the ideas that Jesus didn't exist at all ('Jesus is a myth'—a minority view) with the rejection of divine/supernatural claims ('Christ is a myth'—a two-thirds majority worldview, though it probably doesn't seem that way in the US). Without greater clarification on the distinction, it should not be presented as 'fringe'. See also Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias. (It is telling that this article is full of weasel words about the 'claims' of 'myth proponents' including some reasonable views in the Key arguments section, in stark contrast to how Christians fought 'tooth and nail' to not have the word 'myth' in the titles of Genesis creation narrative and Genesis flood narrative.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See, above, the article clearly spells out the difference. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, this article should clearly state that it is not about material that properly belongs at historical Jesus, particularly including the entirely reasonable view that supernatural stories about Jesus were invented later. Only then should this article be marked as fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear (in the article's lede, and in other sources) that CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. I think it's obvious that CMT proponents also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles, and isn't the Messiah (both of which presuppose the existence of a historical Jesus). If some sort of distinction needs to be made in this article, I don't see it, but feel free to propose an alternate lede. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your statement that "CMT proponents also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles" is redundant, and somewhat misleading. Even the article title does not make the distinction clear, in fact it makes it worse. At the very least, the distinction would only be properly made clear by not emphasising the name Christ myth theory. The article should be moved to Jesus myth theory, and the term Christ myth theory should be indicated only as a secondary name it's also (inaccurately) known by. The view that Christ is a myth is not remotely 'fringe'. More accurately, JMT proponents "also believe that Jesus didn't perform miracles" because the don't believe in a "historical Jesus", but CMT proponents include people who recognise the possibility of a historical Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Fringe is like obscenity, we know it when we see it. The idea that Christ is a myth is not fringe any more than Galileo was fringe. Not only Dawkins and Hitchens but Albert Schweitzer, Will Durant and all the others. Misplaced Pages loses credibility with stuff like this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Per the definition in the lede, the CMT is not merely saying that the supernatural events described in the gospels are mythical, it means that there was no historical Jesus in any meaningful sense. Also, fringe in the sense of the category is not a pejorative qualification, the bar is that only a tiny minority of scholars (not authors) support the thoery, something which isn't denied by anybody as far as I'm aware. Galileo's theories were once fringe in the sense Misplaced Pages uses that term. Later they became mainstream. Plate tectonics is the standard Misplaced Pages example by the way: once a fringe theory, now a part of mainstream science. There is a subcategory for pseudoscience, and I would oppose adding that subtag, because there are a handful of serious scholars who support the CMT. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Albert Schweitzer did not belive CMT. Albert Schweitzer was a notorious historical Jesus theorist. I think you're wrong about Will Durant too; but even if not, he also believed European languages were descended from Sanskrit. Bacchiad (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support The overwhelming scholarly consensus supports the historocity of Christ. The principle supporters of the CMT here seem to have tremendous WP:COI issues. Zarcusian (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is broad support for the historicity of Jesus. Christ is a separate theological claim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're well aware that for the purposes of this vote the terms are being used interchangeably. That's an entirely different issue. This section is to vote. Post your debate under the new section. Zarcusian (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to tell me what I'm 'aware of'. I don't care that some imagine that the terms are interchangeable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And there's the problem in a nutshell, you "don't care". The opposition here seems to have some very serious NPOV conflicts. Hardly a surprise this article has an open ANI dispute. Zarcusian (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to misrepresent what I said. I am not involved in any current ANI dispute, and I have clearly indicated why the terms are not interchangeable, and why the article name has a bearing on applying a fringe tag.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I think that it's very important to return the "Fringe" label to this article. It is clear that this is a view held by a tiny minority of scholars. Proponents generally apply hypocritical and inconsistent requirements to New Testament scholarship and textual criticism that are not required for other historical figures. People rely on Misplaced Pages for information. The purpose of the "Fringe" disclaimer is to alert readers that they need to read the article with a certain level of skepticism and critical thinking. --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

By its very name, Christ myth theory is inherently about people who don't believe Jesus to be Christ. Whilst that includes people who don't believe Jesus existed at all, it also inherently includes the broader view that there was nothing supernatural about Jesus. The premise for the article is therefore misleading. This can only be rectified by renaming the article and shifting focus away from Christ myth theory. Then it may be appropriate to apply a fringe template, after the article text is also reviewed for misleading emphasis on Christ rather than Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a certain logic to that argument, but we don't get to pick the name ourselves. People like Price use the term Christ Myth Theory for the idea that there was no historical Jesus, not for the mainstream idea that the supernatural events depicted in the gospels didn't happen. Read the lede, there can be absolutely no confusion about what the article means by the term. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is insistence to use a misleading title, then it is not appropriate to apply a fringe template. Further, this statement in the lead: "Some of these authors concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional" is actually entirely consistent with the mainstream secular view, and does not convey to readers that only 'hardcore mythicists' are being discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see what you're so hung up on here. The name of the theory that there was no historical Jesus is "Christ Myth Theory". That is the name that has been used by proponents and detractors in published works. I see why you could draw the conclusion that based on those three words alone, it might mean something else. But it doesn't - elsewhere "Christ Myth Theory" has been defined, and we reflect that definition in the lede. Perhaps clarification is needed, but as Mmeijeri has said, we should name the article as it is named in academic work. As an FYI, the article has at two or more points in the past been named Jesus Myth Theory.

As an aside, I don't see a problem with bringing clarity to the article by removing the bit about some authors conceding that Jesus may have been a real person, as that seems to be a sub-theory that is at odds with the theory as a whole. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose in its current form. We had a long formal process on this talk page a while back, and it was agreed that the CMT actually has two different definitions - Def A: that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all; and Def B: that Jesus may well have existed but he was not God and he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Def A is opposed by a majority of the scholars who bother to get involved, and Def A may thus meet the definition of fringe, but Def B is virtually mainstream. I think the lead should state more clearly that Def A is not broadly supported but that Def B has a lot of support - I don't think the current wording is clear enough. To simply label the entire CMT as fringe, without clarifying that distinction, would thus be wrong. The lead used to be more clear about this than it is now. Wdford (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The B interpretation does not have a lot of support at all. Mainstream historical Jesus research doesn't say Jesus had virtually nothing to do with Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream scholars dispute the birth narratives, the virgin birth, the massacre of the infants, the flight to Egypt, the many miracles, the resurrection, the ascension etc. It even questions some of the content of the sermons as having been added in later. It seems that Jesus was a Jew who became a political threat and was executed for it, not a God-man who started a new religion. Some scholars obviously do still claim that the gospels are all historically true, but that does not seem to be a majority view anymore. Wdford (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In other words, they dispute the miracles and some of the contents of the sermons, but they accept there was a historical Jesus at the core of the gospel stories. Our interpretation B does not encompass that view. There aren't just two views: all historically true vs our interpretation B. There is a third view, which is clearly distinct from both views and that view is the mainstream view among historical Jesus scholars. You are conflating the mainstream view with interpretation B, and not for the first time. We had a lengthy discussion about it last year, in which you found yourself in a minority of one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream scholars dispute a lot more than just the miracles and the sermons, they also dispute the birth narratives, the virgin birth, the massacre of the infants, the flight to Egypt, the resurrection and the ascension. When you look closely, all that remains is "There was a real Jesus-person, who was baptized and crucified". That is not much different to Wells and Doherty. I'm not saying that the CMT is accepted by the mainstream, merely that there are two definitions of the CMT, one is fringe and the other not. Wdford (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

All of these except for the massacre of the infants count as miracles. Also, mainstream biblical scholars don't just believe in the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion, that's just the only part they agree about. There is no variant of the CMT that isn't fringe in the non-pejorative sense. There are several variants that aren't fringe in the grassy knoll sense though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to the average reader that "all of these ... count as miracles". A reader might think that any of those events has some 'historical core', whereas some or all may not have happened at all, and this is in line with mainstream views. This is especially problematic if the article title is labelled as 'fringe' for stating that Christ (not Jesus) is a myth. For this reason, discussion about the article name cannot be separated from an assessment as fringe.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless of course, CMT is unambiguously defined in the lede to mean that the theory that there was no historical Jesus at all. I really don't see what the trouble is. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that the term Christ myth theory is more common, because there are more people who view Christ as a myth. All proponents of the Jesus myth theory inherently ascribe to the more reasonable Christ myth theory (that is, based on what the words actually mean, not merely what is 'popular'), but most people who view Christ as a myth are not part of the fringe Jesus mythicists. It is convenient to their cause to use the more rational title because it does exactly what is happening here—it blurs definitions, falsely implying a kind of legitimacy by associating their view with the more reasonable view that Jesus wasn't magical. On the flipside, it is also convenient for Christians to refer to the idea that Jesus is a myth as the Christ myth theory because it serves to 'discredit' the mainstream view (guilt by association). As such, it is in the interest of both biased groups to associate the mainstream view with the fringe view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that supports your claims regarding these definitions? --Sennsationalist (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Examination of questions to do with Jesus' existence is not part of mainstream historical research in the first place. It's the concern of a clique of Bible scholars who openly reject the standard evaluation criteria used by historians. That only a small number of those are prepared to say "hang on a second" does not make for a "fringe theory". All theories about whether Jesus existed have a weak empirical basis, but none deserves categorisation as "fringe", which is of course a pejorative, and highly misleading, label. Formerip (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we do have serious historians who have opined on the matter. But whether a theory is fringe in the sense of the tag and its category doesn't depend on the number of scholarly opponents, but on the number of scholarly supporters, and it is clear there are only a handful or so of those. Also, it turns out the tag and its category are not in fact pejorative, as you can see from the category page I linked to above, and which I also blockquoted for easier reference. There is a subcategory for things like pseudohistory, which is clearly pejorative, and whose use I agree would be inappropriate, given that there are serious scholars who support the CMT or at least take it as a serious possibility. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not very sure we do have any mainstream historians (i.e. working outside the field of Bible studies) who have opined on this debate, except to criticise the field. I am certain that we don't have any in recent times who have published research or made a serious contribution to the key questions. It would be outside their job description, really.

What we have in this case is a peripheral group of academics, some of who eschew mainstream methodology and some of who prefer to stick with it. In that context, it is not appropriate to label the latter group as a "fringe". They are not, in the wording of the category page (which I don't incidentally, privilege over ordinary English usage) departing from the prevailing or mainstream view (because, in the wider academic community, there isn't one). Formerip (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the academic standing of biblical scholarship and historical Jesus research in particular can be questioned, but at best that would mean that HJ Jesus scholarship is fringe too (again, in the non-pejorative sense), not that the CMT isn't. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, we don't have an article specifically on historical Jesus scholarship, so we can't really balance things by that method. What we have, somewhat scandalously, IMO, is a lot of content across multiple articles (including this one) that treats it as if it were uncontroversial mainstream work, so I think you've put your finger on a significant neutrality issue. Formerip (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of my main concerns too. I've tried to mitigate this by adding citations to criticism sections, but I agree the problem remains. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FormerIP, it is not Misplaced Pages's place to determine whether or not the majority of biblical scholars are biased. That sounds a lot like WP:TRUTH to me. The overwhelming majority of anyone in New Testament scholarship (including non-Christians) has affirmed the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, and your assertion that they "have a weak empirical basis" on which to make these claims is irrelevant. I would also challenge you to provide evidence that mainstream biblical scholars "openly reject the standard evaluation criteria used by historians".

I am not sure why you expect "mainstream historians" who do not work in biblical studies to have made claims on the historicity of Jesus. History can be very specialized, and those most qualified to argue for or against the historicity of Jesus will be biblical historians. I'm not sure why that's a problem

Lastly, among scholars and academics, the historical existence of Jesus is or at least has been until very recently uncontroversial. That CMT may be slowly gaining traction and popularity among non-academics shouldn't have any bearing on how Misplaced Pages treats the matter. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

We're moving away from the topic of this subsection, so if this goes on for a lot longer, we may want to start a new subsection. That said, there has been criticism about a lack of impartiality and a lack of methodological soundness in biblical scholarship in general and HJ research in particular. This criticism has come from respected scholars both inside and outside the field. I think it's a valid concern, but I don't see how that would affect the fringeness or otherwise of the CMT. Nevertheless it is something that should be reflected in the way we treat HJ scholars, although I'm not sure exactly how. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no hard and fast 'rule' here, and the "fringe" label could be argued either way, IMO. The problems with applying the label are, for me: (1) the CMT is under-represented by a 'nose count' of academics--after all, there is still enormous pressure NOT to endorse this view, pressure which includes loss of job and reputation (cf. Thomas L. Brodie recently losing his position). Thus, simply saying "very few serious scholars endorse this position" is not an accurate gauge of support. (2) The whole field is in a state of flux, and the CMT is on an upward trajectory (look at Prof. M. Casey's statement that "One of the most remarkable features of public discussion of Jesus of Nazareth in the twenty-first century has been a massive upsurge in the view that this important historical figure did not even exist"). Thus, what is arguably "fringe" today may not be so in the very near future. (3) There actually is substantial support for the CMT among serious scholars. The section #9 above (Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT) shows this (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Citations_Demonstrating_Scholarly_Support_for_the_CMT). Given these reservations, I would not apply the 'fringe' tag which, in addition to the substantive reservations noted above, also carries undeniable pejorative overtones (even if they are not intended nor necessary).Renejs (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) is a flawed argument. You're basically saying that because CMT is fringe, that is stopping it from not being fringe. If CMT is a fringe viewpoint then of course there will be prejudice against proponents of it, just as there would be for proponents of 7-day creationism, or an earth centered universe. (2) Misplaced Pages does not predict the future, we simply report on verifiable academic sources at the current time. See WP:SPECULATION. (3) 20-25 scholars through the last century is not a very large group in the entire body of biblical academic scholarship during that time. (4) We have established that the fringe tag should not be viewed as pejorative, and the possibility that some might interpret it that way should not stop us from following Misplaced Pages guidelines. Our decision should be based on the definitions of a fringe theory. Please follow Misplaced Pages guidelines instead of making up your own standards for what qualifies. --Sennsationalist (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I just gave my opinion.Renejs (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. In the non-pejorative sense, it certainly is fringe. Bacchiad (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support It is nearly impossible to do a doctorate at any mainstream university on this subject, because no modern respected scholar will defend it. And interestingly enough, even the proponents of the theory, such as Robert Price, admit that it is a fringe theory.--TMD Talk Page. 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Virtually every respectable scholar of antiquity agrees that the idea of Jesus never existing is an outlier at best. --Ajmcinty (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory vs Jesus Myth Theory

I'm starting a separate section on what the title of the page should be, because it has nothing to do with the fringe tag. Our article is about the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all in any meaningful sense, as opposed to the mainstream idea that there was a historical Jesus but the miracles didn't happen. The former is a fringe theory, in the non-pejorative sense, the latter isn't.

A decision on the fringe tag is independent of a decision on a potential name change, and therefore should not have to wait for its resolution. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It absolutely relates to the fringe tag. Jesus myth theory is fringe. Christ myth theory is not. This distinction is especially important for balance because, as WP:BIAS states, "the average Wikipedian on the English Misplaced Pages is ... from a majority-Christian country".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, if the lede makes it clear what the article means by the term CMT. I'm saying no reader could take a glance at the article we have today and come away with the impression that the idea that the miracles didn't happen is a fringe theory. If you dispute that, you need to argue that in the subsection on clarity. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, an unambiguous lede that defines CMT as it is defined in academic literature (eg. that there was no historical figure called Jesus) should completely nullify your argument Jeffro. Your definitions of Jesus myth theory vs. Christ myth theory are not found elsewhere, and seem to just be your personal interpretations of those two phrases? As such, your argument that Christ myth theory is not fringe is neutralized by both a clear definition of the theory, and the non-existence of an alternate definition. The only problem I can see is perhaps a vague lede, and that can be fixed. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarity of the definition of the CMT in the lede

Again, another subsection so as not to distract discussion of the fringe tag or delay resolution of that discussion.

Does our definition make it sufficiently clear that we use the term CMT not for the mainstream idea that the miracles depicted in the gospels didn't happen, but only for the much more radical idea that the gospels do not even have a meaningful historical core? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Martijn, we cannot make up our own definition of the CMT. We have to accept the way in which the CMT proponents define their own theory, and we need to accept that there are two different definitions - one of which accepts a historical figure but disputes most of what the gospels claim about him. Carrier et al claim there was zero Jesus, and are thus fringe, but Ehrman himself acknowledged the different definition of Wells and Doherty. Were it not for this dual interpretation, there would be little action on the article at all. Wdford (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you challenging the definition as we have it now? It does not encompass the mainstream position of a historical core with legendary supernatural accretions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement "Some of these authors concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are almost entirely fictional" does encompass the mainstream view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you name a single mainstream biblical scholar (who is not also a CMT proponent) who says the biblical accounts of Jesus are almost entirely fictional? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The definition that we have now was a compromise, as you well remember. I accepted it as a compromise, so I will stick with it. However I emphasize that the mainstream view is not "a historical core with legendary supernatural accretions", as the mainstream view also disputes the historicity of other gospel-factoids as well. A better summation of the mainstream view would be "a historical person around whose simple life story a huge amount of fabrication has been accreted, for religious and political reasons." Wdford (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's still very different from saying there is no meaningful historical core. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it's productive to debate the application of the fringe definition, when we can hardly agree on the CMT definition, and now we need to debate the definition of a "historical core"? Surely it would better serve the development of the encyclopedia to rather state, in plain English: "Modern scholars generally agree that a historical Jesus existed in some form, but they cannot agree on the correct "portrait" of the historical Jesus, and of all the gospel stories, they can only agree that he was baptized and that he was crucified by the Romans." How about that? Wdford (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Referring to a "meaningful historical core" is next to useless. It can be broadly interpreted from there was a Jew named Jesus who was executed right through to most of what the 'gospels' say is true. The subjective assertion of "almost entirely fictional" also isn't great. Most of the wording suggested by Wdford seems okay, but replace "the correct 'portrait' of the historical details, and of" with "most of the details. Of". Also delete the second instance of "that he".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The proposed text strikes me as reasonable, but I don't understand what bearing it has on the subject of this subsection. Where do you want to insert it, and what else if anything would you like to remove? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

He already said in a previous response that he's talking about the definition in the lead—the sentence that includes the wishy-washy "meaningful historical core".--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose to delete the sentence "The hypothesis goes beyond assuming the supernatural events described in the gospels are not historical, something which is the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, it assumes that the gospels are based on no meaningful historical core," because we cannot agree on the interpretation of the term "supernatural events", and because the concept of a "historical core" is vague - how much detail would constitute a "core"? I would instead add in this proposed sentence - or something very similar - and then clean out a lot of the last paragraph, which would then be duplication. Wdford (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose trying to be BOLD. Feel free to make a change on the article page itself and let's see if we can make a series of small edits, each trying to improve on the previous one. At any time anyone can say, wait let's return to the status quo version (i.e. the one before my recent BOLD edits) and hammer this out on Talk first. I would suggest leaving redundant material like the final paragraph intact until after we've reached consensus on a new version. Deal? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The last time I tried being BOLD on a Jesus-related article, I was accused of vandalism and drowned in apoplectic atheists. Can we start by agreeing to remove the sentence "The hypothesis goes beyond assuming the supernatural events described in the gospels are not historical, something which is the mainstream view in Historical Jesus research, it assumes that the gospels are based on no meaningful historical core."?? That compromise definition can stand on its own, I think? Wdford (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I only added that sentence today, as a bold attempt to clarify things. It seems not to have been successful in that :-). Per WP:BRD anyone is entitled to revert it, and I would certainly invite you to do so if you think it helps. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I could agree to removing sentence as it stands. Maybe some sort of revision to the effect of a multiple-sentence statement like "Modern scholarship in general believes many of the extraordinary statements and events in early Christian literature were later additions and are not necessarily related to the life of the historical Jesus. The CMT goes beyond that in arguing that the historical existence of anyone closely resembling the modern academic view of a historical Jesus ever existed." I acknowledge that is longer, a lot longer actually, but I think it helps define the intended scope of the article a bit better. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what John proposes. However I don't think we should say "anyone closely resembling the modern academic view of a historical Jesus", because the modern academic view of Jesus is very far from the gospel version of Jesus. I think it would read more accurately if we state ""anyone closely resembling the biblical view of Jesus", which is much more what Doherty etc actually state. Wdford (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of the proposed changes by Wdford or John Carter, and am heartened to see productive discussion occurring here. I propose a slight revision to John's suggestion, beginning the paragraph: "Christ Myth Theory is distinct from the mainstream theory that is supported by modern scholarship, namely that many of the extraordinary statements..." This would bring clarity to the concern that Jeffro has of his perception of CMT vs. JMT. If someone can find a more plain way to say what I've suggested, I'm all for it. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine and good, but we would need to clarify exactly HOW the CMT differs from mainstream theory, and that is difficult because different CMT proponents have different views of what their theory actually is. By just adding that "Modern scholarship in general believes that a historical Jesus did exist but that many of the events in the gospels were later additions and are not necessarily related to the life of the historical Jesus", we can let the readers compare it to the already-stated broad definition of the CMT and draw their own conclusions. Much easier, yes? Wdford (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important to make it clear that the modern historical critical view of Jesus is that the gospels are based on a historical person, with a lot of legendary accretions, both in the form of miracles and other supernatural events, but also in some of the events that aren't physically or historically implausible but nevertheless not historical, and that some of the teachings attributed to Jesus are considered inauthentic as well. Roughly speaking I think the image is Mark + Q - miracles & other supernatural events - some teachings - a few plausible non-miraculous events. This way people won't confuse the historical critical view with the traditional religious view or mistakenly think only the miracles and other supernatural events are discounted by mainstream biblical scholars. They will then also not think that anyone who disputes something that's still historically plausible is automatically a CMT supporter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The real question is how to do that clearly and concisely in the lede.... That's a lot to cover, although I agree with you on its importance. For comparison, so far we have these two proposals. I've consolidated the proposed changes here as it helps me visualize what it will look like. My suggestion for "This is distinct from..." is first.

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. This is distinct from the mainstream theory that is supported by modern scholarship, namely that many of the extraordinary statements and events in early Christian literature were later additions and are not necessarily related to the life of the historical Jesus. The CMT goes beyond that in arguing against the historical existence of anyone closely resembling the modern biblical view of a historical Jesus.

Or the version leaving out my phrase.

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. Modern scholarship in general believes many of the extraordinary statements and events in early Christian literature were later additions and are not necessarily related to the life of the historical Jesus. The CMT goes beyond that in arguing against the historical existence of anyone closely resembling the modern biblical view of a historical Jesus.

Either way, I think we are working forward from one of these. --Sennsationalist (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd object to the words "modern biblical view of a historical Jesus", since it seems to confuse the historical critical with the traditional view. I think the defining difference is that the CMT assumes that very little if anything at all is historical, while the mainstream scholarly view is that while some of even the historically plausible events are fictional, there is still a substantial amount that is historical. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Martijn here. So perhaps we could work from "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the hypothesis that Jesus of Nazareth never existed; or if he did, that he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. CMT thus holds that very little if anything of the gospel stories is historical, while the mainstream scholarly view is that at least Jesus’ baptism and crucifixion were historical events." Simple and concise, but I think it covers all the bases. How about that? Wdford (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) It might be possible to create a first section of the article, maybe "Scope of usage of the term" in some way, which indicates the equation Martin put forward above as being the basic range in which this term is used. Like I said over at the Historicity of Jesus talk page, there are both one recent encyclopedic reference work on the topic of the Historical Jesus and a recent lengthy 4 volume, 100+ article, 3000+ page handbook dealing with the study of the historical Jesus, and I would love to see them consulted by me or others to see what articles we need but do not yet have and provide at least a bit of a basis for them. FWIW, the list of articles in the encyclopedia can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles and pdfs of the table of contents of the handbook can be found here. I would certainly welcome any input, maybe at the Christianity noticeboard WT:X or elsewhere, which specific subjects related to this topic are our most pressing needs as is, so that we can maybe have some degree of concerted effort to develop the subject more fully. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence, "Modern scholarship in general believes many of the extraordinary statements and events in early Christian literature were later additions and are not necessarily related to the life of the historical Jesus". This suggests that modern scholarship generally believes that at least some of the "extraordinary statements and events" actually happened. Surely it would be more accurate to state that modern scholarship generally agrees that none of the "extraordinary statements and events" actually happened, since the only broad agreement in scholarship is that Jesus was baptised (a mundane religious rite without magical birds or voices) and was executed (a mundane event that didn't cause earthquakes or culminate in resurrection).--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't read Wdford's suggestion before my previous response. That wording is certainly better (but without the thus). There is still a risk that it implies that scholars accept the supernatural claims surrounding Jesus' baptism and execution. That might be within acceptable bounds for the scope of this article, though would probably be improved by adding something like "the mundane aspects of" after (or replacing) "at least".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that, at least from what I can remember of stuff I first read decades ago, there is, or at least was at the time, strong reason to believe that some of the "cures" which Jesus, and maybe others at that time, executed were in one sense real cures, but of psychosomatic illnesses. SFAIR, that sort of thing was though to have occurred fairly frequently back then, at least related to strongly charismatic "healers". Obviously, I don't know, and rather doubt, that academia has said any individual "cures" were more likely than others, but at least at the time the idea of at least some of the healings being real, but of psychosomatic illnesses, was a real and prevalent one. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably. But psychosomatic cures aren't really that notable—especially not in a culture where mental illness was 'demonic possession' and disease is caused by 'sin'. I'm not aware of any evidence for any of the 'cures' presented in the gospels as being based on any verifiable events, psychosomatic or otherwise.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think a Scope of the Term section would be counter-productive, because different proponents have different ideas about these terms. The best way is to list all the major interpretations by the various proponents, as we have already done, so that readers can see the full range of differing opinions. The definition in the opening sentence of the lead summarizes these various opinions pretty well, considering the wide range of those opinions. Wdford (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Revamping the "Criticism" section

A lot of what appears in this section is quoting from anti-CMT authors. Would it not be better to condense this into a simple paragraph which reads along the lines of:

In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Wdford (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't standard to capitalise the adjective biblical. Are you quoting a specific source for "almost universal assent"? Otherwise seems fine to me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to condense the entire Criticism section down to a single paragraph? Or just a portion of it? If so, which portion? --Sennsationalist (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the entire section - at least to begin with. The rest of the current content is merely quotes from various anti-mythicists repeating essentially the same line. If we summarize it to that one paragraph, we can write it in Misplaced Pages-voice, and it should be relatively uncontroversial. What need is there to add more quotes? Wdford (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading the criticism section, it does largely seem to be various people repeating the same thing over and over. I would like to amend to "Nearly all modern scholars who work in the field of biblical scholarship..." I'm not set on the wording, but would like the statement to reflect that this viewpoint is held by a vast majority of scholars. "The field" is a bit vague/undefined, although I'm not sure if we want to call it biblical scholarship, biblical history, or something else.

Otherwise I'm OK with shrinking this section down, as it seems appropriate for this article. As an aside I think that some of the repetition among the CMT proponents could use trimming as well for the sake of clarity. --Sennsationalist (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK then, so we are proposing a single paragraph that will read "In general, nearly all modern scholars who work in the field of biblical scholarship agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate." Is everyone happy with this wording? Wdford (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's good as far as it goes, but it leaves out the important fact that mainstream biblical scholars are contemptuous of the CMT and question the credentials of most of its proponents. In any event I think we should move the existing criticism section to a separate read-only section of the talk page, so that people can mine it for properly rephrased and copy edited material. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammatically it probably works better to go "...biblical account of Jesus. The only two events..." just to break up the sentence. I do agree with Martijn's point about CMT being treated with contempt though. I think we could make the edit and add that bit later though... --Sennsationalist (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section is repetitious. I'm concerned that the proposed language is too short, and doesn't capture everything that's there now. I will have a go at condensing the section tomorrow and see if we can meet a little more than halfway. Bacchiad (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is my more conservative edit. I left in almost all of the existing sources except Robin Lane Fox, who didn't so much criticize the CMT as implicitly contradict it. I took out all of the blockquotes except for Ehrman's one about six day creationism, which I think is necessary for flavor. I think the result is somewhat less repetitious but still preserves all essential information (including contempt). No doubt some more pruning that can be done, however. Bacchiad (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, modern scholars who work in the field largely agree that Jesus himself did exist historically, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus , and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Nevertheless, Christ Myth theories find relatively little support from scholars. According to Bart D. Ehrman (a former Evangelical Christian turned agnostic who has written extensively about the questionable accuracy and authorship of the gospels), most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory.

Ehrman also notes that these views would prevent one from getting employment in a religious studies department:

These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Maurice Casey likewise notes that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists" and "demonstrably false", and that "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view", further stating that "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory", and that the idea has been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the mythicists "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Although, it should be noted that several authors, including Richard Carrier and Stanley Porter have suggested that such 'modern critical methods' have suffered from having some overlapping criteria, among other issues.

I think Lane Fox was a useful addition, as he is an ancient historian, but not a NT scholar. Also, the counterpoint to Grant was inserted by Renejs unilaterally, over the objections of four or five other editors. We do not rebut our sources, and certainly not selectively. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Martijn; I'll reflect those points in my next edit. It also strikes me that there are presently four kinds of things in the section now: 1) assertions of the historical Jesus position, 2) arguments for the HJ position (e.g. opponents of Christianity never said he didn't exist), 3) assertions that HJ is the overwhelming scholarly consensus, and 4) direct attacks on CMT (e.g. comparing it to 6 day creationism). It's my opinion that 3 and 4 need to be covered here. 1 and 2 might not. Bacchiad (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Good analysis, those points are definitely the most important to preserve. --Sennsationalist (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Meijering has re-inserted the Grant citation as it was prior to the edit war of Jan 4-6. In so doing, he has ignored the discussion on this page that the content of Grant's citation is no longer true (see above, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Grant.27s_views_in_1977_are_no_longer_true). We have so far four sections on this talk page devoted to the Grant citation: (§ 6) Grant's views in 1977 are no longer true; (§ 11) Grant 1977 assertion, edit warring, and refusal to accept up-to-date information; (§ 12) RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today? (§ 15) Towards consensus on updating Grant's 1977 paragraph

All the above devolves on one statement, made by the historian Michael Grant in 1977 (but actually quoting another scholar by the name of Otto Betz from the 60s). The part of the citation which Gekritzl and myself strenuously objected to were the words: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That statement may or may not have been true in 1977 (or in 1968 when Betz wrote it), but it is definitely not true today.

The RfC section above was put on this talk page specifically to elicit opinion on how people feel about the validity of those words by Grant. NOT A SINGLE USER supported Grant's statement. In fact, it is a no-brainer: the situation has clearly changed since 1977. Fr. Thomas L. Brodie is a "serious scholar" and he endorses the CMT. Richard Carrier also endorses it, as does Robert M. Price who has two doctorates, and also the Canadian scholar Tom Harpur. Anyone who thinks that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" today is living in a fantasy world.

This is a minimal test of whether an easily provable fact is able to determine content, as per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The statement by Grant is clearly false. Therefore, can anyone come up with a reason to keep it AS IS in the article? Otherwise, it must be removed or amended to reflect the current situation.Renejs (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained it several times already, and so have others, but I'll have another go. Your objection would be valid if we had said ("in Misplaced Pages voice" as it's called) "No serious scholar has postulated...". But we aren't doing that, we are merely reporting that Grant said it, which is true, well-cited and notable. In other words the fact in question is not that no serious scholar has proposed the CMT, the fact is that Grant expressed an opinion on the topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that Grant's view is out of date. The article is from 2015 and not 1977. Today the statement is false, and so it has to go.Renejs (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One more point: If this was a history article, you might have a point. You know, "We're reporting on what Grant said in 1977. . ." But it isn't. Even the info that the statement dates to 1977 is not in the text, so the average reader (who doesn't move his cursor over the citation) will suppose that it's contemporary. That's misleading--in addition to the content being false today. You can't have it both ways. Either this is a "History of the CMT" section (which it isn't and doesn't even try to be), or it needs to reflect the CURRENT situation. According to the latter criterion, the Grant citation obviously fails.Renejs (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding "in 1977" to the quote. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the quote is from 1977 (well, actually, from 1968 citing the scholar Otto Betz) but the CMT article is from 2015.Renejs (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Carrier and Porter

I've removed the changes that were edit-warred into the article. Whoever is in favour of them can of course argue for them, but they should not be reinserted before there is a consensus on the new version. This is purely a procedural objection.

On a substantive note, the reference to Carrier and Porter does seem like a useful addition, but the criticism section is not the right place for it. We can't offer selective rebuttals, and counterarguments belong in a separate section on the debate between proponents and opponents, should we decide to have one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A Farewell to Grant

Renejs does have a half-point, although he is difficult about it, that 1977 was a while ago. We have more current sources saying about the same thing, do we not? In that big compendium above, no? Why don't we agree to use one of those instead? Bacchiad (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Grant absolutely has to remain, but I'm adamant that he shouldn't be edit-warred out of the article. That's a procedural objection. I think there are also substantive arguments in favour of retaining him. His is an interesting view because 1) it is representative of a large number of scholars, 2) his views show that it's not just biblical scholars (who might be suspected of ulterior motives) who dismiss the CMT in scathing terms and 3) that this is not a recent phenomenon. I can't shake the impression that the real objection to Grant is that he says something people don't like and want to see either removed or rebutted. 'I don't like it' isn't a valid reason for deleting something, and selective rebuttals are also inappropriate. We do not debate our sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just about every assertion in the above is wrong-headed. To begin, this is a content issue, not a procedural one. Meijering, you have a long and troubled history of wiki-obstructionism when you don't like change and when your control is apparently threatened. Your talk page (before you recently sanitized the following comment out!--I have proof) showed this. You once held up the works so long that another editor complained to the admins, "we are all going die of old age on this." That's not gonna happen with this article. . .

Content takes precedence over procedure, especially mythical procedural burdens imposed by a single editor. We already have a consensus. You're "refusing to hear" ((https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22) The edit war was a long time ago in Wiki terms. Since then there's been an RfC over this matter, and no one offered any rationale why Grant's statement is still true today. Of course, it obviously isn't. So it has to go by already established CONSENSUS.

Your reasons for keeping the Grant statement are weak. They are not "substantive" (contrary to your characterization). Just because you find it "interesting" does not come close to keeping this obsolete indictment of the entire CMT in the article. Grant's is a 'benchmark' assertion--that's why we're expending so much energy discussing it.

You are wrong is asserting that Grant's assertion "is representative of a large number of scholars." I challenge you to prove this by furnishing us with "a large number of scholars" who say that "no serious scholar" supports the CMT. Oh, I'm sure you could find one or two conservative scholars eager to make such an assertion. But that's just more conservative POV pushing. It would require us to define "serious scholar" as a conservative biblical scholar. There are some here who are not willing to do that.

Finally, please don't think that I just want this Grant statement removed because I "don't like it"--as you imply in your comment. This isn't a control or ego thing for me (though I think it may be for you). I keep coming back to the main issue: it's not whether we "like" something but whether it's verifiable fact TODAY. We have a whole list of scholars now who endorse the CMT. One is even a Catholic priest. Another is an Anglican minister. It's time to put the Grant assertion behind us. Maybe he was correct in 1977 (that's arguable, BTW). But he's certainly not correct today. And your arbitrary procedural impositions, Meijering, cannot be allowed to determine the course of this article. Verifiable content will. You need to self-revert--on content grounds! Do us all a favor here. Paul B (talk) Renejs (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is weird. The above comment was by me, Renejs, but somehow "Paul B" shows on the signature line.Renejs (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I was removing the ref tags as requested by Bill the Cat 7. That edit will appear as mine if the "four tildes" were still in their 'raw' state when I saved it, registering it as my edit . Probably created by an edit conflict. Paul B (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (that really was me)

Oh, I'm pretty sure Renejs will have objections to those other quotes too. My personal favorite is how the CMT is equated with the theory that the moon is made of green cheese. I'd go for that one. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. The full quote is this and it is still as true today as it was in '77:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

I'd like to suggest a round of applause for Bacchiad for self-reverting the Grant "no serious scholar" statement out of the article. A lot of users wouldn't have been able to do that--especially when dealing with such a "difficult" editor as myself. Well done--and thank you, because we may have averted another edit war.

I was going to offer another analysis of the Grant paragraph here, but I'll spare everyone this now that the most incorrect element in the Grant paragraph is gone. At least one of the remaining elements (the "annihilated" part) is still POV and unacceptable. But I'm going to let that rest for awhile. We'll eventually need to talk that out. Talking's always better than edit-warring!

We have now on this talk page two compendiums (or is it compendia?) of citations. You all do realize, don't you, that BOTH compendiums are POV? One is full of conservative Christian bias (as is the Grant quote), and the other is full of liberal skeptic bias. So, just drawing from one compendium or the other probably ain't gonna fly, since Misplaced Pages's readers include both conservatives and liberals. We have to find a middle ground, and that's tough. How many times have you seen agreement between a born-again Christian and a liberal atheist?

For those who actually read these talk pages, we've already hashed out a "compromise" to the Grant paragraph above. It was in the article for a whole 2 hours before being reverted out. . . It reads: "The CMT has been answered by first-rank scholars but not annihilated. Very few “serious scholars” advocate for the CMT today, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the evidence--however fragile--to the contrary." (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Towards_consensus_on_updating_Grant.27s_1977_paragraph) This is defensible from both sides and probably about as NPOV as we're going to get. It's got the majority opinion: "first-rank scholars". . . The minority: "very few". . . But it also notes that the evidence for historicity is "fragile" (this is probably the majority opinion in mainstream New Testament research). If somebody has a better idea, let's have it. . .

The alternative to a "compromise" passage is BLANK--no paragraph at all. This may be the way we'll eventually have to go. So, AFAIK, we have two options: compromise or BLANK (delete the whole Grant paragraph at the end of the Criticism section).Renejs (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, we have two different alternatives: the status quo or a new consensus.

Again, Meijering, you are "refusing to hear." We HAVE consensus! Nobody thinks Grant's statement is true today.

If there is no new consensus, the status quo remains by default.

So WRONG. We have a new consensus, which is precisely why the status quo must GO!

There is no way anyone can impose a change to the status quo without a consensus. Propose it, sure, but not impose it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For the 3rd time: We've got consensus. Meijering, your procedural hangup is REALLY getting in the way here. Let it go! You're not going to win this by YOU trying to impose procedure over content.Renejs (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, can someone either delete the references below or move them to where they belong. They're annoying. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Making the Grant quote more accurate

We clearly do not have a consensus about what if anything to do with the Grant quote, and if the nature of the discussions we've had over the years is any guide, it is unlikely we'll reach a consensus in the near future. Nevertheless there are a few simple edits that I hope will be uncontroversial:

First of all, our abbreviated quote is slightly misleading, as it omits the crucial words 'or at any rate very few'. In addition we could make clear (by using apostrophes in appropriate places) where Grant is citing other scholars and where he is speaking in his own voice. Finally, we could add the words "in 1977" to avoid any impression this was a recent criticism. Similar time indications could be added to other quotes if necessary, but let's start here.

I'm hoping that we'll at least be making some small amount of progress, as well as demonstrating how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. What do you say? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clap clap. After two weeks of tussling we're finally abandoning the "short form" of the Grant statement! The glacier has moved. . . "Slightly misleading" is, umm, a slight understatement--try: "outright false."

I'm not in favor of attempting a convoluted resurrection of the Grant paragraph--even with the many 'bandaid' provisions you note ( adding a date--actually multiple dates; adding citation markers to secondary sources; adding "critical" words). Practically every part of the Grant paragraph is false and must be jettisoned. We haven't even started discussing the various parts of that factually unsupportable paragraph. For example, I have problems with the first assertion: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." This is very questionable. At the very least, a consensus would have to be determined here. Secondly, the word "annihilated" is pure POV and untrue. A more moderate word like "answered" needs to go there. Thirdly, the evidence against the CMT is not "very abundant." This is grossly unsustainable, as a reading of the above section, "Scholarly Citations Supporting the CMT" shows. Finally, the additional words "or at least very few" qualifies a false main clause ("no serious scholar"). The problem is in the main clause and is not overcome by those additional words which begin with "OR". There is no "or" about it in 2015: the main clause is itself false.

ISTM that this colossal refusal to part with the very imperfect Grant paragraph owes to the fact that many people simply like it. It confirms the ultra-conservative position on the CMT very nicely. But liking something is not a reason to keep it. Each statement must be verified on its own right, and it must be NPOV, whether we like it or not. We've already discussed a "compromise" paragraph. For some reason, that isn't getting the attention I think it deserves. Maybe it's time will come. . .

The only way I see keeping the Grant paragraph (as stated in the book, not our false, pruned "status quo" version) is if we wanted to contrast the situation in 1977 with that in 2015. This would be a whole different kettle of fish, one which nobody's talked about. I doubt there would be much interest in this possibility, which would probably require a new section dealing with "The CMT through history" or some such.Renejs (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting my position. I've never argued in favour of the shortened version, and I had already argued for extending the quote and adding the 'in 1977'. I have no objection to changes in general, but together with several others I objected to the specific changes you made. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What "specific changes" did I make that you are objecting to?Renejs (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the "no serious scholar" part and adding the "However, it should be noted" rebuttal. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a loose cannon, Meijering. You've got the wrong person! I didn't add the 30 words beginning "Although, it should be noted. . ." That was added on January 5 by user 122.106.82.185 (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=641062864&oldid=640980043). How can anybody make headway with you if you're not able to be objective?

You also have a RIGID "refusal to hear." I already informed you of this, that I've added NO words at all to the CMT article. That was only two days ago on the ANI page (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=643158073). I wrote: "I've NEVER put any content into the CMT article. Check my contributions. . . " What part of that do you not understand? Stop falsely accusing me of things I didn't do!

To recap for everybody: My SOLE activity in this whole brouhaha has been to REMOVE 11 words from the Grant statement at the end of the Criticism section. You know the words well: "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." That was on Jan. 6. Now those words are back in because yesterday Meijering put them back. So, after ALL the discussion on the Talk page, multiples sections, an RfC, etc. etc., we're BACK where we started. . . That's vintage Meijering for you! And that's unacceptable to me.

I've given discussion a really good go, folks. Obviously it hasn't been enough. It's clear to me that a lot of you follow Meijering's lead, and that he's become a self-appointed 'policeman' on the beat. Nothing goes in or out of the article without his OK, which he calls "consensus"--but only HE determines when that consensus is attained. . . if EVER! I now understand how it works. Thanks for the education.

A number of you are blocking critical new information from entering the CMT article. That's obvious. You're insisting on a 1977 status quo, one chock full of POV. OK, here's the deal to everybody reading this: I'm going to do whatever it takes to break that embargo on new information and on NPOV. If it takes another edit war. Several edit wars. Or edit warring forever. If I get banned in the process, so be it. I'm acting on principle here, and know that Misplaced Pages will be the beneficiary.

Sure, there are wiki rules. But there's also "Ignore the rules" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means). "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.” The objectivity and integrity of Misplaced Pages are at stake here, folks. Loosen up, and allow Jesus mythicism a place at the table. After all, this is the "CMT" article.Renejs (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be for the first two suggestions but not the last ('77) because it implies that the situation has changed. It was a fringe theory back then and it still is today, with virtually no one supporting it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bill, I beg to differ. The situation in 2015 is not at all the same as in 1977. Invoking the controversial word "fringe" isn't adequate. Most of the "serious scholars" today (OK, there aren't many of them--I'll grant you that!) weren't known to Grant. I don't see how we can use his 1977 view today.Renejs (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No objections here to either change, although, maybe, it might not be bad to maybe start that whole paragraph, "In 1977 classical historian Michael Grant..." as that might be the shortest way to include all the material, and give emphasis to its timing. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bill, does this address your objection? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

Maybe some might object to this, but the talk page here as is is at 317K. Maybe we could archive some of the older comments, to make it less lengthy? John Carter (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. There are some instructions for the archiving bot on the page already, maybe the best thing to do would be to tweak those. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the details of the bot, so we may have to do some reading to figure it out. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do start a new page, I would suggest porting over BOTH Reference sections (compendiums of citations, #4 and 9), and also section 17 (Adding a fringe tag) which has the voting thus far on this controversial issue.Renejs (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've archived those sections which have had no comments this month. It isn't much, but it is a start. John Carter (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2015 (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