Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Christ myth theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

A little while back I removed the "further reading" section of this article. My thinking was that since the article already cites a huge number of high-quality sources--all of which appear in the references section--a further reading section was unnecceary. Recently another editor put the further reading section back in, though. I'm inclined to cut it again for my original reasons. What does everyone else think?

Further, if certain editors are inclined to retain such a section, what do you think about the books and articles that currently appear there? Some of them are far too outdated to be of any more than historical interest and others are clearly qutite marginal. Eugene (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a point to the section, but I willing to go with what everyone else says. That is, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody? Eugene (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on whether that's the best word to use, but after I read the lead, it made me search the article for the next instance and a more detailed explanation. It's a bit funky that the word does not appear a second time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is still a work in progress. One of the editors here has compiled a long list of quotes (see FAQ #2) from various scholars that indicate how crazy the CMT is. Check it out when you have time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We're still discussing its appropriateness. Anthony (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which. Above, E4mmacro says it seems wrong to use McClymond's term "psedoscholarship" as the term used by most scholars, when even McClymond does not say most scholars use that term. Can anyone give an argument in defence of leaving it in? Anthony (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, it's true that the specifc word "pseudoscholarship" doesn't appear again in the body of the article but the "methodological concerns" section covers this element and does use words like "denialism" and "fringe theories" and include Wright's quote comparing the thesis to the belief that the moon is made of green cheese. That should satisfy.

Anthony, here's my argument for retaining the word "pseudoscholarship" in the lead: It is used explicitly by a couple authors--including McClymond himself in connection with his "most scholars" comment--and it serves as a sufficiently broad term to incorporate the statements made by other scholars. For example...

Robert Price: "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"
Earl Doherty: Mainstream scholarship's interaction with the CMT is "limited to expressions of contempt."
Herbert George Wood: "the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism"
Shirley Jackson Case: the CMT exhibits a "disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration"
Christopher M. Tucket: the CMT is "farfetched"
N. T. Wright: CMT is equivalent to the belief that "the moon was made of green cheese"
F. C. Conybeare: CMT advocates are even more fringy than "Bacon-Shakespeareans"
Leander Keck: "Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed."
Brian A. Gerish: CMT "evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment" since "In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin."
John Drane: "We do not need to take seriously" the CMT advocates
Rudolf Bultmann: the CMT is "unfounded and not worth refutation" and can be entertained by "No sane person"
James Frazer: CMT equivalent to doubting the existence of "Alexander the Great and Charlemagne"
Robert Miller: CMT advocates simply "refuse to be convinced"
Will Durant: CMT, if true, "would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel"
Bart Ehrman: "I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing." And, if one is willing to just dismiss the evidence surrounding Jesus, "why not just deny the Holocaust?"
William Lane Craig: CMT "is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship."
James Dunn: CMT is "Sad"
Albert Schweitzer: CMT is "even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis."
Paul L. Maier: "the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation."
Nicholas Perrin: "The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust."
Michael McClymond: "Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.
Michael R. Licona: "There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe."
John Dominic Crossan: "I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying."
Mark Allan Powell: Anyone who advocates the CMT "in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."
Emil Brunner: "An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth."
Edwyn Bevan: CMT "has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare." Also the CMT "can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing."
John W. C. Wand: "Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed."
Morton Smith: CMT has been "thoroughly discredited" is "absurd" and it's advocates are "cranks".
James F. McGrath: "One category of mythicists [are] like young-earth creationists" while "Other mythicists ... resemble proponents of Intelligent Design" but "I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism."
Carston Thiede: "In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime."
John Dickson: "To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method."

Of course, if you really want to stick very closely to McClymond's own wording and thus exchange the current sentence that rounds out the lead with the following, I won't try to stop you:

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio."

But somehow I think that the status quo is less controversial. Eugene (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The mind boggles at the effort thrown at this article in the attempt to give the CMT an appearance of credibility. Why are people still discussing this? The serious discussion was over a century ago. It has been revived by cranks in "recent years". Big deal. This doesn't justify us juxtaposing serious 19th century scholarship with recent pulp pseudo-scholarship in a giant article. My impression remainst that the only reason this article is so long and detailed is the attempt to disguise from the casual reader the fact that the entire thing can be shrugged off in a one-liner. I seriously think the effort vaporized on this could be put to much better use in serious articles on biblical scholarship. Currently, it seems it is Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) who is fruitlessly perpetuating this non-issue. It is the oldest trick in the book to just keep splitting hairs until everybody else gives up in exasperation, or failing that, until any information that is helpful and to the point is buried under heaps of useless detail. "Is it pseudoscholarshi"? Zomg, we need to discuss this in depth for the next five months or so. Never mind that it is already fully established that this page is about a "theory" that no biblical scholar would touch with a ten foot pole, but is it "pseudo" and is it "scholarship", and should we connect the words with a hyphen? In my experience it is a mistake to even acknowledge this approach as a valid item of discussion. --dab (𒁳) 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dab said:

My impression remainst that the only reason this article is so long and detailed is the attempt to disguise from the casual reader the fact that the entire thing can be shrugged off in a one-liner.

Yes, that's probably true, but what is the alternative? Many of us have been battling to make the CMT clear, but every time a statement is made on how crazy the theory is, the other side asks for a proof/citation. And since that has happened almost every week for the last six months (and probably longer), the article has grown in size. I'm not sure how we can overcome this problem, but I'm open to suggestions. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All most people have asked for, is that points being made be backed up with specifics not sneering comments. How is that trying to increase its credibility? Detailed criticism, not just opinions, should do the complete opposite. Sophia ♫ 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know me Dab? Anthony (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't rise to the bait. They are often rude and dismissive and you just need to ignore it and focus on the issues. Sophia ♫ 21:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I like your proposed new revision, Eugene, but the last part is a bit Fox News. Would you settle for

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard the theory with contempt, and as unworthy of any response."

The overwhelming impression your list leaves on me is one of disdain, which I think this phrasing conveys quite well; and we can use "the theory" because their contempt is obviously directed at both proposition and arguments (whereas pseudo-scholarship can only apply to the arguments). Anthony (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ehhh... it strikes me as a bit unencyclopedic and as something that would raised a whole new batch of objections related to POV. Eugene (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it sums up the response of academe pretty accurately, at least as presented in your list, without crossing into "the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio" which will never survive in the lead (or the body of the article, for that matter). Anthony (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have much of a problem with Anthony's phrasing if and only if we can get a consensus that it must be linked (in the footnotes and/or in a FAQ) to ALL of the quotes listed by Eugene above as well as on his user page here and here. What do all of you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it. Anthony (☺) 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Anthony's wording accurately conveys the opinions of most scholars, but I think Eugene is correct that it will raise a lot of POV-related objections. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If we follow Bill's suggestion and link to an impressive list of quotes, that should obviate any confusion between the article's POV and the judgment of mainstream scholarship. Though, to achieve that end, the list should avoid incendiary terms like holocaust denial, and comprise quotes from recent authoritative publications. Anthony (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate Bill's creativity, I don't think linking from the article to an FAQ is a workable solution. The FAC reviewers would object to the anomalous formatting. Better to just stick with the status quo. Eugene (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a link to the FAQ. An intelligent selection of quotes in a footnote would work. Anthony (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think "pseudoscholarship" is better: it's more encyclopedic, it's less likely to provoke POV concerns, it's less open to charges of OR and SYN, it's wikilinked, and the wikilink's target article now has a decent definition of the word connected to three university published sources. Eugene (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the worth of your definition is still not clear. See: Talk:Pseudo-scholarship Anthony (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FA would probably allow a few quotes in a supporting ref, but not a giant paragraph of 20 quotes. I think. I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting a link to ALL of the quotes. Since that doesn't appear to be feasible, then never mind. Let's stay with "pseudo-scholarship". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Bultmann's "not worthy of refutation" paired with Price's "disdain" or Doherty's "contempt". It addresses the theory, not the learning of the authors; it reflects the case that no serious scholar wastes their time in detailed refutation of modern proponents; and is endorsed by two of the most prominent contemporary advocates. A link to quotes from Bultmann, Doherty and Price would satisfy any reader. Anthony (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bultmann makes no reference to how "most" scholars feel--he only gives his own take; Doherty's website is manfestly not a reliable source; and Price's book is very iffy on that count too. It wouldn't stand up to scrutiny; pass. Eugene (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may interest you Anthony (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A while back the article included a section on popular culture that read thusly:

Finally, the Christ myth theory has entered popular culture through a variety of avenues. Films such as the conspiratorial Zeitgeist, the polemical The God Who Wasn't There, and the satirical Religulous discuss the theory at some length. Also, like Russell before him, "New Atheism" advocate Richard Dawkins has made passing reference to the theory in his book The God Delusion.^[1] Slogans such as "Jesus never existed" have become something of a meme, appearing in graffiti and on merchandise of various sorts.^[2]

This section was deleted because an editor thought that some of it was biased (calling The God Delusion pop-culture) and some was unencyclopedic/OR (the merch and graffiti). I conceed that the merch and graffiti were a mistake, but I still think that much of this section is worthwhile and should be included somewhere, either in it's own section or perhaps as a part of the "popular opinion" section. Any thoughts? Eugene (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that such a section is important to include in the article. There are so many people that consider the CMT as a valid theory that such a section is necessary to disabuse them of their preconceived notions. Please add it back in and expand on it if possible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree there is enough notability to warrant a pop culture section we must be careful here as the pop culture definition of Christ Myth theory is a little broader than the Jesus never existed one this article uses.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got three works by the "new atheists" that refer to the CMT. Rodney Stark (former President of the ASR) has written "today only dedicated atheist writers cling to the notion that Jesus never existed". Van Voorst has written that the CMT is pushed not for objective scholarly reasons but for "anti-religious" purposes. The survey data indicates that atheists are far more likely to embrace the CMT than the average person. Should we perhaps have a section on the CMT and atheism? We could put it alongside the "Ironic Christian apologetical uses", perhaps under a shared heading:

Ideological uses

Atheist polemics

Ironic Christian apologetics

What's everyone's take on this? Eugene (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before the two don't go together. There are atheists who believe Jesus existed and Deists that believe he didn't; never mind Tom Harpur who was an ordained priest in the Anglican Church of Canada as well as a Professor of New Testament and New Testament Greek at Wycliffe and he is one of the Christ Myth supporters.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I do think something along those lines would be interesting. This blog has some good comments and suggests Michel Onfray deserves a mention is such a section. However, if you go for motives, I think that for balance you ought to also state the motivation of proponents like Price and Harpur. I think Price said it well in the five views on Jesus book: the non-existence of Jesus does not diminish his belief in Christ at all; on the contrary, since the Christ of Faith is all there is, Price is now completely free to believe in whatever liberal conception of Jesus he wants. Uhm, the end slightly deviated from what Price explicitly said, but I'm sure you'll find it in the book and can summarize it more adequately than I did. Vesal (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a good section to have, actually. Even though there are many atheists who agree that Jesus existed but dispute his miracles, the CMT has been used most recently in the context of atheistic arguments. It's pretty obvious that the biggest atheist movements today use it to advance their theories. How about you draw up a rough draft and we can look it over? Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The text that's just been put up really doesn't work. Prominent atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins have nothing in common with mystical writers like Freke and Gandy. It has to be made clear that these atheists don't propose a theory of their own but place the burden of proof upon Christians to show that Jesus was a historical figure. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it works very nicely. Also, the text doesn't say that Hitchens and Dawkins are proposing their own theories - rather they "have likewise made passing reference to the hypothesis" (italics added). Finally, this article isn't a Christian vs. Atheist proposition. It's about what virtually all scholars consider to be a bogus theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you posit it as a theory. These atheists are precisely not proposing it as a theory. They are turning the tables and challenging others to come up with evidence that Jesus did exist. I'm going to take this back to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to try and get more views. You'll see in the board archives that I argued that the consensus of theologians is that CMT is fringe. But this is a different issue. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Stenger cites Doherty and Dawkins cites Wells, the difference is not so large as you imagine. Eugene (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:FTN for more views. I think some people are using this page to present original research in the history of ideas. Quite good research if it wasn't being done on Wikipedia, bringing together the earlier writers with the most recent ones. But making an original synthesis to promote a position is against policy. Atheism is not a fringe theory and we shouldn't imply that it is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said, or implied, that atheism is a fringe theory. Even atheist scholars severely criticize atheists who refuse to look at the evidence for the mere existence of JoN. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to refresh myself on the CMT, so I looked at Christ_myth_theory#Arguments, and it's really short. This article seems to be more about the history of the theory, and who supported it or didn't over the years. It looks like the "Scarcity and unreliability of extra-biblical sources" section has some important points to make, but you have to click through to several other articles to actually find out what's going on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peregrine Fisher, I agree with you. I notice that you have written a number of articles designated "good". I would be interested in hearing your opinion, as well as others', on the idea of splitting an article out from this one that would be titled "History of the Christ Myth Theory" and keep the CMT article more tightly focused on the facts and evidence that are used for and against the theory itself. This article is now of such a large size that a warning is displayed when it is edited, so perhaps something should be done to rein in this beast. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, size isn't that big of a problem. A lot featured articles, which are supposed to be our best, are huge. But, an article should match its title, and right now this one doesn't really explain the theory, or when it does, it's haphazardly placed throughout the sections. I don't think people want to make two articles about it, but if they did, it could easily be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit of info that seems to be missing from the "Soviet adoption" stuff is that Marx was a student of Bruno Bauer. One or two sources think that Bauer's ideas about Jesus became Soviet dogma through the line of influence Bauer --> Marx --> Soviet Union. That seems a bit simplistic to me, but if we're going to have the Soviet stuff in the article, we'd better mention Marx, and perhaps draw more attention to Engels' piece "Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did take it out because I didn't see we had enough ground to make the simplistic and, really, misleading Bauer to Marx to Soviet Union link. Marx was, after all, scathingly hostile about Bauer. It's well known that the Russians got much of their Marxism from Engels' works, but we can't draw directly from Engels essay as it is a primary source. One of the sources you just recommended has a reference to a book devoted to Marx and Bauer, so it may be possible to look that up. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the first paragraphs of this article to provide more detail to the central arguments that underlie the Christ myth theory, as well as to try to make it more NPOV.

I notice that User:Bill the Cat 7 removed my changes with the comment "He misunderstands what the CMT is and also seems to be pushing a POV." The goal of my changes is to make the article more consistent with the theory, and to make the article more neutral and NPOV.

Since User:Bill the Cat 7 offered no additional details for why these changes should be removed, I am reinstating them for now, with the following justification provided below. I understand that some may be attached to the previous version, but think it would be better for the integrity of the article if you do not revert the changes without providing a detailed justification that can be evaluated by the community.

I believe that I have added a number of facts which are generally undisputed by both proponents and opponents of the CMT. These facts are important for the reader to know about from the outset. Here are the changes and the reasons for them:

1) Added the word "legendary" with a link to the "Legend" wikipedia article. This is justified by the use of this term by proponents of CMT as described in this article. The next sentence, both original and as I revised it, support the use of the word "legend" to describe the position of some CMT proponents.

2) Changed "Additionally, some proponents of the theory allow that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity."

to

"Some proponents of the theory posit that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. "

The use of the term "allow" has an implied POV, as it presents the argument in relation to the opposing POV, as if they are conceding a point in a debate, whereas the word "posit" is neutral without reference to an opposing POV.

3) Changed "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods."

to

"They give priority to the earlier Christian writings, the epistles, over the later texts, the "gospels", in determining the views of the earliest Christians and note many parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods. Some suggest that Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."

The rationale for this change is to help the reader understand the relative time frame in which the epistles and the gospels were written. The epistles are earlier than the gospels, and this helps explain why someone would put more emphasis on them in understanding the views of the earliest Christians. I believe that the word "perceived" could be seen as a pejorative adjective that is being used to push the oppositional POV and should not be included. The parallels between the biography of Jesus and others are factual, well-documented and not in dispute (e.g. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, miraculous cures), though their relevance and the explanation for the parallels certainly is contested. Not all proponents of the theory agree that "Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism", so I changed the wording to reflect this fact.

3) Changed "absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century." to

"the absence of any contemporaneous historical reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the few non-Christian references to the Jesus figure in the first century C. E."

The original version of this sentence is incomplete in its summary of the arguments and evidence for the theory. The issue is not just that there are no extant references to Jesus, but that there is no contemporaneous historical evidence whatsoever. This is a fact, undisputed by both sides of the argument, and it should be included at the outset. It is also an undisputed fact that the authenticity of the non-Christian documents allegedly referencing Jesus is uncertain. The unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the Josephus quote is a good example of the factual basis of the second part of the revised statement. The original weak description is advantageous to the oppositional POV and does not provide all of the facts.

4) Changed

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship."

to

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it has little support among biblical scholars. While Christian scholars have sometimes accused proponents of the theory of pseudo-scholarship, most Bible scholars allow that the documentation of the life of Jesus is quite weak."

a) I removed the reference to "classical historians" because all of the sources referenced are bible scholars (i.e. professors with degrees in theology or bible studies from theological institutions), not classical historians (i.e. professors with degrees in classical history from secular institutions). Unless there is evidence that there are no classical historians who support at least some version of the CMT, the original assertion is not factually correct and is misleading.

b) The accusations of pseudo-scholarship can, and do, come from both sides of the issue. Documentation of ad hominem attacks is not particularly helpful to the reader, but it should at least be balanced with a counterargument. I have provided a counter-balancing statement with a reference to a leading proponent of the theory, Dan Barker.

c) The goal here is to make this sentence more balanced in POV, rather than to emphasize just the POV of those who oppose CMT.

d) It is more accurate to say the theory has "little support" among bible scholars. To say it is "essentially without support", overstates the case, as obviously the theory itself is one that has historically been presented and defended by some bible scholars.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Context and Definition section, I made some similar changes to reflect the facts and provide more context and to make it more NPOV.

Changed "Modern scholarship generally believes that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." to "The majority of Christian Bible scholars believe that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." The term "modern scholarship" is overly general as a noun in this case, and is really an unprovable assertion, as "modern scholarship" cannot be said to be 100% in agreement with the oppositional POV. "The majority of Christian Bible scholars" more accurately describes the group of people who represent the oppositional POV.

"Modern scholarship generally believes" is accurate; "Christian Bible scholars" seems to say that all bible scholars are Christians. Perhaps you just meant "the majority of New Testament scholars"? But that wouldn't capture the full range of scholars who have written about Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself are known. Further, no account of Jesus' actions and teachings were produced during his lifetime." to "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself or any of his contemporaries, Christian or non-Christian, have ever been found. Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from that time period." This more accurately reflects the undisputed facts that are the basis of the CMT. The previous version is a weaker version that supports the oppositional POV by omission of important facts. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard claim would be that the letters of Paul and the Gospels are "extant historical documents from that time period" that record Jesus' existence. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "that time period"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "that time period" is intended to refer to "his lifetime". All scholars agree that the letters of Paul and the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. How about changing this to: "Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from the period of time that the New Testament says he lived." Does that make it clearer? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed "The Christ myth theory, however, stands entirely outside this continuum. It argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, simply never existed at all." to "In contrast, the Christ myth theory argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, either never existed at all, or is a legendary figure whose actual existence simply cannot be proven." This more accurately reflects the range of opinion that exists within the CMT camp. This range of opinion is well-documented within the article and is also stated from the outset in both the original and my revised version of the second sentence of the article.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, PeaceLoveHarmony, but I find that your edits are not improvements to the article. Some of the things you say above are simply factually incorrect (such as the claim that bible scholars are not from "secular" institutions), others result in a dramatic understatement of the scholarly disdain for the CMT at present, and others dilute the definition of the CMT itself. As an example of the last problem, your insertion of "legendary" into the beginning sentence. The CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. But inserting "legendary" would mean that the CMT includes people who think that the Gospels are a theological elaboration of the life of a real, historical person—i.e. a vast number of mainstream scholars writing about the historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Akhilleus, I appreciate it. Please note that I did not state that bible scholars are not from "secular" institutions. I stated that the specific scholars who were referenced were all bible scholars with degrees from religious institutions, not classical historians. Please re-read my argument above, which was making a distinction between bible scholars and classical historians. Your response misrepresents what I said. I understand that bible-believing faith-based scholars of religious institutions would have disdain for a theory that undercuts the very basis of their belief system. This is not a surprise, is it? However, it is disingenuous to create a criteria for "mainstream scholarship" that only includes this group, when there are plenty of reliable sources, using Wikipedia's guidelines, that in fact advocate strongly for the CMT. These views should be included if this article is going to maintain NPOV.

This article presents two very prominent advocates of CMT using the word "legend" to describe the Jesus myth. For one, the title of one of Wells' books is "The Jesus Legend" The second example is this: "In a forward to The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, Mark Hall writes that Allegro suggested the scrolls all but proved that a historical Jesus never existed. "According to Allegro," he wrote, "the Jesus of the gospels is a fictional character in a religious legend, which like many similar tales in circulation at the turn of the era, was merely an amalgamation of Messianic eschatology and garbled historical events".

The idea that the Jesus stories are loosely based on more than one itinerant messianic teachers and that the stories themselves may or may not be based on fact is consistent with the view of some CMT proponents and is in harmony with the use of the word Legend. Wikipedia currently defines Legend thusly: "A legend (Latin, legenda, "things to be read") is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Legend, for its active and passive participants includes no happenings that are outside the realm of "possibility", defined by a highly flexible set of parameters, which may include miracles that are perceived as actually having happened, within the specific tradition of indoctrination where the legend arises, and within which it may be transformed over time, in order to keep it fresh and vital, and realistic." Note that this definition deals with perception of historicity, not the facts of historicity. Let me put it another way. Suppose that the Jesus story is based on folklore that emerged regarding five different itinerant messianic teachers of the first century and which was eventually consolidated into a single narrative describing a single person. This is the viewpoint of a number of CMT proponents, as is well-documented in this article, and certainly fits the definition of "legend".

I am restoring the changes that I made, because you have not effectively rebutted the individual arguments I have painstakingly made for each change, and instead have made a few unsubstantiated blanket statements rejecting them all, without even addressing most of my points.

For example you did not provide any refutation of the additional facts which I added with regard to the lack of contemporaneous historical record of Jesus' existence. These facts are not disputed by opponents of CMT, and it only enhances the article to include these facts.

Please provide the community with a more detailed justification for your position, and if you wish to change what I have added, please make specific changes, not a wholesale revert of everything without providing justification.

Thanks! PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, the issues you are concerned about have been discussed before. So, before you make any changes, I strongly suggest that you go through the archives to familiarize yourself with the issues. If you don't want to go through the archives, then please discuss any changes you wish to make before implementing them. Any changes made without a full discussion will be reverted. Thank you for your understanding. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Bill in asking PeaceLoveHarmony to read the talk page archives. I know there are a lot of them, but since there's a lot of repetition, you can get the main points fairly quickly. Most of what PeaceLoveHarmony is saying above has been covered before (often multiple times) in previous discussions. E.g. your point that the sources used are "bible-believing faith-based scholars of religious institutions" has come up again and again, and the basic response is 1) not all of the sources are bible scholars (footnote #2 currently cites G.A. Wells, who was once an advocate of the CMT); 2) not all bible scholars get their degrees from, or work at, religious institutions; 3) some of the sources cited, even ones that have gotten degrees from theological seminaries, don't consider themselves Christians (Bart Ehrman for example); 4) the sources should be selected on the basis of expertise and authority, and people like Graham Stanton and James Charlesworth are eminent scholars who are in good positions to assess the consensus of scholarship. And really, your implied argument, that Christians are incapable of thinking rationally about the history of early Christianity, is biased and offensive.

I agree, though, that the lead doesn't currently cite a classical historian, so a citation to Michael Grant should be restored at the end of the lead.

On "legend": please don't rely on Wikipedia entries or book titles for the meaning of this word. There's a lot of work in the academic fields of anthropology, folklore, etc. which uses "legend" to denote traditional narratives that have a kernel of historicity—not just historical truth in the eyes of the teller and audience, but actual historicity. Jacob Grimm's original definition of legend stated that it was either connected with a definite historical event or a definite historical person (see Heda Jason, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/539740.pdf "Concerning the 'Historical' and the 'Local' Legends and Their Relatives," Journal of American Folklore, 84 (1971) p. 134). Inserting "legendary" into the first sentence is at best confusing. The CMT is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. Using "legendary" implies that the New Testament was made up on the basis of a historical Jesus. All of the writers who say that the NT narratives are based on the life of some historical person other than Jesus of Nazareth are saying that the NT is in some sense legendary, but that needs to be explained in a way that doesn't confuse the basic definition of the theory—which is, to repeat myself, the idea that there was no historical Jesus.

@Akhilleus: Well, this is confusing. Here is the sentence from the current version: "Additionally, some proponents of the theory argue that some of the events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity." How is this different from a legend? It certainly meets Jacob Grimm's very strict definition of legend of being connected to a definite historical person, i.e. one or more individuals who actually existed. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, the word "legend" could be applied to this specific variant of the CMT. But this variant says that a different historical figure than Jesus of Nazareth inspired the New Testament accounts. But, when you put "legend" or "legendary" in the first sentence, it implies that the CMT is a theory which thinks that a historical Jesus of Nazareth inspired the Gospel accounts. We need to avoid giving the reader that impression. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your response presupposes the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth. I suggest taking a step back and thinking of this debate along the same lines as the debate over the existence of a historical William Tell or King Arthur. These are both legends that some scholars believe are rooted in an historic personage, and others believe are purely fictional. But everyone agrees that the word legend is appropriate to describe them. A person can take either position (historical or fictional) and still call the stories a "legend". A more apt analogy might be the legend of Robin Hood. In this case, there are a number of different individuals in history that some could speculate were the "real" Robin Hood, but in all probability the figure emerged as a composite fictional character based on multiple people who did in fact exist. Again, the use of the term "legend" fits this perfectly and fits the arguments made by modern CMT proponents such as Dan Barker. I understand why opponents of CMT would like to narrowly define it for the purposes of making a straw man argument against it, but this really violates the spirit of NPOV. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that I'm an opponent of the CMT and have an ax to grind. What I want to do is accurately reflect what mainstream scholarship says about this topic (and this is exactly the spirit of NPOV). Mainstream scholarship says that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth and that the CMT is fringe. But this isn't important for the point that I was making. I'll repeat it again: the CMT is the theory that there was no historical Jesus. The lead sentence needs to state this clearly. If you put "legend" or "legendary" in the opening sentence, you define the theory in such a way that its proponents believe that the New Testament was inspired by a historical Jesus of Nazareth. And this is not an accurate definition of the theory...

I don't know anything about Dan Barker, but if this page is an accurate statement of his views (it has his byline, but I don't know if the website is reliable), he wouldn't disagree with the definition of the CMT given in this article. He writes: "There is serious doubt that Jesus ever existed. It is impossible to prove he was a historical figure. It is much more plausible to consider the Jesus character to be the result of myth-making, a human process that is indeed historically documented." For further reading, he lists books by G.A. Wells, Robert Price, Freke/Gandy, and J.M. Robertson, people whom this article discusses as advocates of the theory. So I'm having trouble understanding why you think the article employs a "straw man" definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus for the link to Dan Barker's article. I have just been reading his book "Godless" and this page you reference is an excellent summary of the basic arguments for the CMT. In my opinion, a good article on CMT would lay out the arguments that are made in this article and in his book in one section, and the rebuttal to the theory would be presented in another section. Obviously this would be written from an NPOV perspective, being sure to identify what aspects of the arguments on both sides are opinion and what aspects of the arguments are based on facts.

The history of the idea and the people who have proposed it in the past may be interesting reading to some, but should probably be split out into an entirely different article, with just a brief summary provided in this main article.

RE: the straw man argument, I think it is important for the reader to understand that the CMT can include the idea that the legend of Jesus Christ may have emerged in a fashion similar to the legend of Robin Hood, i.e. was partially based on multiple stories about multiple real people that got subsumed into a single narrative. The diagram by Eugene that shows the story of Jesus as unrelated in any way whatsoever to any living person who ever existed is a misrepresentation of the ideas that have been presented by a number of CMT proponents. I might also point out that Dan Barker uses the word legend in this article that you reference to describe his position on the issue. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go back through the archive you will see that composite character was part of the definition back when this was called the Jesus Myth theory. However there are several sources that define Christ Myth Theory as Jesus not existing period which leaves the issue of where does the idea of the Gospel Jesus being a composite character composed of several historical teachers one or more who may have lived in the first century fit into this?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On "contemporaneous records", I made a comment on that above, in between two of your comments. Suffice it to say that the mainstream position is that the NT is evidence of Jesus' existence, and parts of it come into being in the mid-to-late 1st century. So it's worth being precise about "contemporaneous" here. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added the POV tag to this article, to reflect the fact that the WP community recently delisted it as a good article due to its POV issues and WP:OWN problems. This is just a warning to other editors who dip their toe in this pond and try to make changes to this article as I did.

To get a pretty quick idea of what is going on, check out this page:

Good article reassessment of CMT

It is clear to me from the discussion that there are two camps at war in editing this page. The POV which currently dominates is one which enforces strict criteria for "notability" in order to give an advantage to the anti-CMT POV. These criteria are not in compliance with Wikipedia standards. Currently this camp is exhibiting WP:OWN behaviors which make it impossible to resolve the POV issues.

The article presents a weak straw-man version of the CMT, provides very limited elaboration of the evidence for the theory and has a much larger amount of material focused on arguments against the theory. It also focuses too much on the history of the ideas and the people associated with the theory, instead of the theory itself.

If you peruse the archives you will see that there are HUGE unresolved POV issues with this article, and it is hard for me to see how these can be resolved currently.

My understanding of the WP policy is that the POV warning tag should remain at the top of this article until these issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Template:POV, particularly the section that reads 'The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.' Your purpose here seems to be to express frustration and warn other readers that you think the article is biased. This is not what the template is for. If you think there are substantive problems with the article, please discuss them. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Akhilleus, you make a very good point. I am not adding the tag as a "badge of shame". The existence of POV and WP:OWN issues is documented elsewhere by editors far more experienced than me:

Good article reassessment of CMT

My apologies if my above comments caused any offense. I believe I have presented a number of specific concerns about the lack of NPOV. In looking at the archives of the talk page I see that a number of editors have also raised concerns that remain unresolved. Hopefully editors from opposing sides of the controversy can work together in good faith to resolve these issues. My concern is that editors like myself who do not hold the anti-CMT position will become discouraged, as I am getting, and simply give up on this thing and "get a life". Removing the POV tag with the issues unresolved simply because no editor wants to spend their life taking on the "owners" of this article is not really doing a service to the integrity of this article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we've come to the point where we need to start discussing implementing a FAQ. I have no intention of rehashing old arguments when a FAQ can be much more efficient. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, I appreciate being informed that the POV tag is not supposed to be used as a warning or a badge of shame. I am fairly new to the WP editing process, so I am learning as I go and I intend to be involved in this process in good faith.

How is an FAQ written from a POV going to resolve this articles POV issues? Wasn't there already an FAQ in the past that was deleted because of complaints about its POV? I think I saw that somewhere in the archives. How can we ensure that an FAQ is not just a mechanism used by some editors to attempt to control the POV of the article?

Please note that this article's POV issues are documented here by multiple editors: Good article reassessment of CMT I am just the messenger, adding a tag to help make this article better. Please don't shoot the messenger. Or remove the POV tag until the POV issues are resolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For more extensive discussion of the many POV problems that this article has, see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoveHarmony (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PLH, this really won't do. The POV tag must relate to an active, ongoing dispute on the article with discussion on the talk page. Links to archived discussions don't constitute active, ongoing discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, we are having an active ongoing dispute right now here on the talk page. The pages that I have referenced simply document that these issues have been ongoing and remain unresolved. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A FAQ can be used to answer...well...frequently asked questions. And the reason the previous faq was removed was because it didn't support certain editors' preconceived notions/POV. PLH, you are asking questions and making accusations that have been made innumerable times before, and which have been ultimately rejected. So, I ask you once again, before making any edits to the article, please discuss them here first. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the same POV problems keep emerging as different editors come across this page should be a red flag that it has POV issues. The fact that editors who want an article that presents the pro-CMT and anti-CMT positions in a balanced and unbiased manner are being overruled by the WP:OWN editors who clearly have an anti-CMT view does not mean that the POV issues have been resolved. It just means that some editors give up, move on, and then some new editors come along to try to fight the same battle for NPOV that was previously lost. I really need to get a life and move on from this ridiculous debate. You win. The integrity of Wikipedia loses. Whatever. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the POV, but there does seem to be a bit of OWN. I would recommend remembering that it's just a wikipedia article, and if it stresses you out, work on something that isn't stressful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence: no, the only thing that that indicates is the fact that few people know that virtually no scholar supports the CMT; and not only that, they ridicule it if they don't just outright dismiss it. Many well-meaning people, such as yourself, believe that the CMT theory is plausible. It isn't. It has been almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars. But don't take my word for it. Check out former FAQ #2 here.

Also, according to WP:Fringe, it is not possible to present this theory in a balanced manner any more that it is possible to present the so-called moon landing hoax in balanced manner. Neutral? Yes. Balanced? No. If you have the time, check out this audio by the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman (who is NOT a Christian, but is an atheist/agnostic). It's not long and I think it would be well worth your time. And please remember, this article is about a physical, historical person who did or did not exist. It's not about the miraculous claims of the bible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CMT is not a fringe theory, using the Wikipedia criteria. "Fringe theory" refers to pseudoscience, not the questioning of theology on the basis of empirical evidence. If the majority of Book-of-Mormon-scholars reject the theory that the Book of Mormon was a hoax document written by John Smith, is the hoax theory a fringe theory? After all, Book-of-Mormon-scholars by definition are the experts in the field. Of course not. By your criteria of "reliable source", which violates the Wikipedia criteria BTW, any non-Book-of-Mormon-scholars should not even be mentioned in an article about the hoax theory unless they have written at least three articles on the subject that have appeared in scholarly journals devoted to the study of the Book of Mormon.

I listened to the radio dialogue between Bart Ehrman and an unidentified radio personality and I found it fairly worthless for the purpose of evaluating the veracity of claims for the historicity of Jesus. The radio personality was not well-versed in the issues, so it can not be regarded as an even-handed debate. I was frankly shocked to hear Bart Ehrman making the claim that the evidence for the existence of Christ is just as strong as the evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar has many many extant contemporaneous documents that refer to him. Jesus of Nazareth has zero. None. Zip. Nada. (The first documents that reference Jesus were written by Paul at least ten years after the crucifixion-story-point-in-time.) Julius Caesar has plentiful physical evidence, e.g. statues and coins that clearly were created during his recorded lifetime. Jesus has none. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If, from these facts, a leading scholar who says he is an agnostic can claim the evidence for the existence of the two figures is equally strong, then there is clearly something wrong with the mechanism theologians are using to evaluate evidence. (A more honest statement would be that the evidence for a single historic Jesus is as strong as the evidence for a single historic Robin Hood.)PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For a more detailed argument about why CMT is not a fringe theory (and possibly mislabeled as a single cohesive theory at all) please see my response here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman isn't a theologian. He's a historian of early Christianity. It would be nice if you stopped assuming that everyone who writes about the historical Jesus is motivated by faith, and recognized that scholars of religion are the sort of mainstream sources that should be used to write this article, and any article about early Christianity—these are the recognized academic experts in this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, Bart Ehrman is a "New Testament scholar" according to his WP page, so I concede your point; substitute the words "bible scholars" for the word "theologians" above. Now please address the actual argument regarding the completely different level of credible documentation of Julius Ceasar's existence vs. Jesus' existence and the problem that exists when even an agnostic bible scholar like Bart Ehrman cannot seem to see the impact of this fact on historicity. I am not saying we should exclude bible scholars, just that we should not exclude non-bible-scholars who meet the credible-sources-standard of Wikipedia. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter? I mean, it's fairly obvious that there's more physical evidence for Caesar than there is for Jesus, and it's also the case that when people are speaking extemporaneously in an interview situation, they make statements that are less careful than the ones they'd make in print. This is one reason why I think we shouldn't use podcasts as sources. Use printed sources instead, peer-reviewed if possible. It should be obvious, though, that Ehrman's opinions are more important than mine or yours, since he's an expert in the subject and we're not. And he thinks the evidence for Jesus' existence is strong, and another thing he says in that podcast is absolutely correct—“we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.” --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It matters because it demonstrates the intellectual blind spot of bible scholars when it comes to objectively evaluating the veracity of the bible, even when they profess to be unaffected by their years of faith-based instruction. This statement that you say is "absolutely correct" is astoundingly wrong and misleading. This page lists dozens of writers from the period of Jesus' alleged lifetime: Classical Latin. The fact that we have their writings is stronger proof of their existence than the proof we have for Jesus. Every single contemporary who is mentioned in all of these writings has stronger proof of existence than the proof we have for Jesus. (There are no contemporaneous documents that mention Jesus during his alleged lifetime. None. Zip. Nada.) This is just basic logic. Why is that so hard for bible scholars to grasp? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to defer to an expert on the ancient world rather than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. If you want to find out why Ehrman thinks that the evidence for Jesus' existence is just as strong or stronger than the evidence for other ancient people, I suggest you take a look at his works, and the works of other scholars who study the historical Jesus. You can get a start at Historicity of Jesus, but keep in mind that Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources in themselves; they only serve as a starting point for further research. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Authority? Really? That's your best answer? Are you suggesting that there is anything stronger to prove the existence of something in history than multiple contemporaneous extant documents? Do I really have to read the collected works of Bart Ehrman to find out what that stronger standard of proof actually is? I sure wish someone would just tell me what it is.

--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I would like to apologize now and in the future for any tone in my comments that might be seen as violating the spirit of Wikilove. I really do not hold any personal ill intent to anyone who is engaged in this discussion. Thanks.)--PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about appeal to authority. The articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources, which is a form of appeal to authority. Basically, we're just supposed to summarize authoritative sources, rather than make arguments on our own. As for not answering your question, I can do it of course, and the basic reason why Ehrman and other scholars think the evidence for Jesus' evidence is strong, it's precisely because of the letters of Paul and the Gospels, documents written not long after Jesus' death. And this is something that people who don't study the ancient world probably don't understand: because of the paucity of surviving evidence, there are lots of people whose existence is only attested in documents from centuries after their deaths. Try Pythagoras, Empedocles, Solon, Cylon of Athens, Croesus, and so on. Yes, some of those guys left writing behind that's (allegedly) by them, but it's only quoted by much later documents. So when you have documents that may be from 1-2 decades after Jesus' death, that's much better than centuries afterward; it's within living memory of the person, for one thing. The Gospels are somewhat later, but most scholars think that material in them derives from oral tradition or earlier written documents within the early Christian community, passed down from people who knew Jesus personally. So again, you have evidence that's pretty close to the person himself. But the reason that I prefer not to answer questions like this is because my opinion counts for nothing in comparison to expert opinion, and because conversations like this are usually futile—when Wikipedia editors start opposing "basic logic" to scholarship they disagree with, that's usually a sign they think they're smarter than these guys with their fancy Ph.Ds, and aren't going to be receptive to the actual scholarship...but maybe I'm wrong, in which case you're better off reading Ehrman yourself than asking me what he thinks, because I haven't read him. And in any case, this article is about a theory that says the historical evidence is poor; it doesn't need to cover in detail why people think the evidence is strong, because we have Historicity of Jesus for that. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) I think that WP:FRINGE says that we should cover why an argument is poor, and what the strong evidence is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher: good point. But this article should devote the bulk of its attention to the CMT—extensive refutation makes readers feel the article has a POV. So this article should briefly cover why the mainstream thinks there's good evidence for historicity, and refer the reader to historicity of Jesus for more detail. That's my $.02, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag needs to stay on this article until the disputes are resolved. Multiple editors feel that it's inherently problematic, but we haven't been allowed to fix it. That's the kind of situation in which a POV tag is appropriate, and I speak as someone who otherwise doesn't like them. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I endorse restoration of the POV tag. Is there an OWN tag? There are still issues, inter alia, with:

most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship. - most?
~~In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism - how did this get back in?~~
English historian Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but much of recorded history prior to the 16th century AD as well. - ad hominem, Not an argument.
~~Despite their unevenness~~ - redundant sleaze.
Thus when the Zurich professor Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel identified just nine "pillar passages" in the gospels which he thought early Christians could not have invented, they proved to be tempting targets for Christ myth theorists—despite Schmiedel's intention that these passages serve as the foundation for a fuller reconstruction of Jesus' life. Redundant
Joseph Klausner wrote that biblical scholars "tried their hardest to find in the historic Jesus something which is not Judaism; but in his actual history they have found nothing of this whatever, since this history is reduced almost to zero. It is therefore no wonder that at the beginning of this century there has been a revival of the eighteenth and nineteenth century view that Jesus never existed." - redundant waffle
Evidence for this cult was supposedly found - supposedly
His work proved popular enough - enough.
the American New Testament critic Robert M. Price has sought to represent the thesis - sought to?
An argument commonly presented in connection with the Christ myth theory is that the biblical material related to the life of Jesus bears allegedly striking similarities to both Jewish and pagan stories which preceded it. -allegedly.
James D.G. Dunn has written that Christ myth theorist Robert Price with regard to the epistles ignores "what everyone else in the business regards as primary data." Dunn writes that Price's interpretation is "a ludicrous claim that simply diminishes the credibility of the arguments used in support." - not an argument.
and that "no serious work on Jesus places him outside that context" - not an argument

I recommend we move Marxist and soviet adoption down to Ideological issues. Anthony (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, you and others have personal opinions that happen to disagree with what reliable sources (i.e., virtually all experts in the field) have concluded. Slapping a POV tag on the article because of your personal opinion is a violation of three core Wiki policies - specifically NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. Unless you and/or others can back up your POV and "problematic" claims with reliable sources, I'm removing the POV tag sometime tomorrow (because no one can use "consensus" to violate core policies). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism,[28] Bauer held that Mark was in fact an Italian who had been influenced by Seneca's Stoic philosophy,[29] and that the Christian movement originated in Rome and Alexandria, not Palestine.[30]". It sounds like OR. Ref 29 and 30 have his beliefs, but ref 28 says his beliefs are in accordance with his Antisemitism? It should all be in one ref, or it's synthesis. Maybe only ref 28 is needed? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Anthony provided that list; specific bits of text are much easier to deal with than sweeping charges of POV. Most of them are easily rephrased to answer Anthony's objections, too. As for moving the Marxist/Soviet bit down, I'd rather move the "ideological issues" sections up; the "atheist polemics" section should really be called New Atheism and focus on uses of the CMT that are truly notable. The "Christian apologetics" section only covers writers from the early 20th century, who were largely reacting to Arthur Drews; this material could therefore be put into Drews' subsection.

Peregrine Fisher, Bauer's antisemitism was discussed before (the discussion has probably gone into the talk page archives) and my feeling was that the issue is complex enough that it would better be covered at Bruno Bauer; an explanation detailed enough to do the matter justice would be too long for the section here (currently 5 paragraphs). --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does that mean we remove the antisemitism part of the sentence, or do we move the refs around? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd just chop "In keeping with his pervasive anti-Semitism," along with the ref. This isn't OR, BTW, and Bauer's anti-Semitism is well established (see the entry at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy for details). It's just that explaining exactly what antisemitism means in mid-19th century Germany is not something that this article really needs to do... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made that change. If further discussion on this point is necessary, we should start a new section on the talk page. If I have time later tonight, I'll try to make some edits to address Anthony's concerns above. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems constructive. How about the fact that this article doesn't make it easy to find out what the CMT is, and why it isn't accepted? Most of the article seems to be about people through history and their opinion on the CMT. It's not easy for a reader to come here, get an idea of the CMT and why it's bogus. They have to read the whole article right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before part of the problem is the literature itself is not always clear on what CMT.

Bromiley is unclear if his definition of CMT is in the Jesus didn't exist at all or if it is in the he existed by the Gospels don't tell anything useful about him as he constantly shifting gears from Lucian to Wells to Bertrand Russel and he starts the rebuttal with Thallus (likelyt he worst source in all the supportive sources)

Dodd's "Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." under the page title Christ Myth Theory is similarly confusing.

Welch's "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" would seem to say Meed and Ellegard with their c100 BCE Jesus are historical Jesus theorist while Wells with his mythic Paul Jesus belongs in the Christ-myth theorist--something Price, Boyd, and Doherty agree with despite Wells saying he belongs with Mack.

Schweitzer in his (1931) Out of My Life and Thought putting Frazer (who believed in a historical Jesus) with John M Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews.

Throw in pro historical Jesus non scholars like Holding who label Remsburg and Dawkins who are in Boyd's Jesus existed but the Gospels tell next to nothing camp as Christ Myth theorists and you quickly see why this article is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or it might be a mess because tendentious editors make unsupportable claims about the definition being vague.

Peregrine Fisher, if the article isn't doing a good job of providing information to the reader, that's a problem. However, this article has to have a lengthy history section, because the CMT is something that's developed over time, and each of the figures named has a different take. Bruno Bauer, for instance, never makes any appeal to mythological parallels, and believed that Christianity arose in an almost entirely Greco-Roman context (i.e. not Jewish). Drews, on the other hand, thinks that Christianity arose from a Jewish monotheistic cult of a deity named Joshua, who became the Jesus we see in the NT; other authors give different reasons why Jesus isn't historical, and alternative pictures of the rise of Christianity. So the history section, if done correctly, explains clearly each author's version of the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the article on sound ground in identifying one "Christ myth theory" that changed through time? Or is it actually giving a false impression of continuity and coherence to some ideas that have a logical but no historical connection? (I don't know, am actually asking, but it does seem to be the crucial issue.) Itsmejudith (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (BruceGrubb will tell you differently, but he's been making copy-pasted versions of the same post over and over again for years now.) The crucial reason for thinking so is that multiple academic sources treat the subject this way. An easily accessible sources is Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, ch. 1. Walter P. Weaver The Historical Jesus in the 20th Century, 1900-1950 has good material in Ch. 2 and a second bit starting on p. 300. There's really no shortage of academic sources covering the theory, its definition, arguments, and prominent figures. By and large you find the same people named as important advocates of the theory—Bauer, Drews, Smith, Robertson, Wells, etc. The same people we cover in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look through both of these now, within the limitations of Google Books preview. Van Voorst goes through the history of the rejection of Jesus' historicity fairly quickly, as a preliminary to looking for Jesus in ancient literature. Weaver's treatment is more lengthy. Neither of them say that they are discussing "the Christ myth". I don't think that either of them are experts on 18th century, 19th century or 20th century philosophy or thought, which you need to be to work out some of the nuancess. I'm not sure what Weaver's field of academic scholarship is but his publisher seems to be a Christian, rather than an academic one. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's "Christ myth theory", actually, and it's true that neither Van Voorst or Weaver use the phrase. But the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept—the theory that there was no historical Jesus. Both Van Voorst and Weaver are discussing the history of that idea. Weaver (and it's Walter Weaver not William as I originally wrote) is Emeritus Professor of Religion at Southern Florida College and former chair of the Humanities Division there. Since this article falls within history of ideas/history of scholarship, Weaver and Van Voorst both seem well-qualified to comment on the history of their academic fields. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter, G.A. Wells, who is an expert on 18th-19th century German intellectual history, gives more or less the same overview of the CMT as Van Voorst, etc. (except of course that he's more sympathetic to the CMT). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Akhilleus seems not to realize that "the subject of this article is not a phrase, of course, but a concept" claim would fall under WP:SYN which clearly states "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." and WP:OR with its "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." something I pointed out way back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_21 with the statement "To date no reliable source has been produced to explain the variance in the definitions of "Christ myth theory" in ALL the sources sited and until such is produced trying to say "Christ myth theory" mean a certain thing is OR." (08:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)) So far what we have gotten has been a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding this key point. Ignoring the fact that Welsh's definition would cause Wells current position to bridge the ground between Christ Myth theory and historical Jesus theory is not going to make it go away. It is a fact that Price, Boyd, and Doherty all put Wells into the Christ Myth theorist category after Jesus Myth something Wells challenges at least as far as Boyd is concerned but the issue is are they all using the same definition? Price doesn't classify himself as a Christ Myth theorist either but Boyd clear puts him in that category. These all point to something not being consistent with the way Christ Myth Theory is used. Also on 12 February 2009 Akhilleus himself states "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research." after I pointed out on 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009, clear examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Akhilleus.

The Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christ_myth_theory/1 showed eight other editors pointing out this article having WP:POV or WP:OR issues if not both and we have POV tag on this article again. Clearly there is something wrong with the article and it is NOT due to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the above - and correct me if I'm wrong - but what I think you're saying is that in this article, the "Christ Myth Theory" is being defined by its opponents. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the definitions I am finding by both supporters and opponents don't seem to agree within the groups nor between them and the article's definition does not reflect that fact. Some clearly don't mesh up; trying to explain how Wells current position doesn't fits both of Welsh's definitions (ie being simultaneously Christ Myth Theory and historical Jesus theory at the same time) is a real issue when you have three other people all independently calling Wells a mythic-Jesus thesis, Christ Myth theorist or Jesus myth theorist long after he was presenting the idea that there was a historical Q-Jesus.

It certainly doesn't help when you realize Boyd is arguing against the Legendary-Jesus thesis which ranges from Bauer to Crossan and doesn't always tell you when he changes his line of thought. For instance 186 Boyd expressly states "thereby refuting the Christ myth theory that Paul thought of Jesus as mythological figure who lived in the distant past." but on 202 it is pointed out that the idea that 'Jesus lived in the distance' past part of the extreme Legendary-Jesus thesis group which only partly includes the Christ myth theory group. But Habermas in 1996 citing Was Jesus crucified under Pilate? in The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ said "Wells admits that his position depends on the assertion that Christianity could have started without a historical Jesus who had lived recently. He suggests that, for Paul, Jesus may have lived long before "and attracted no followers until he began, in Paul's own day, to make resurrection appearances."" Oh by the way at you can see on my talk page Akhilleus has said he may fill a WP:RFC/U in an effort to shut me up; boarder line WP:GAME IMHO.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's one way of dealing with a tendentious editor who keeps making the same post over and over again. In your comment above, you're harping on a comment I made in February 2009, almost a year and a half ago. Even before that, you've been repeatedly making the same argument that the definition is ambiguous, often simply copy-pasting the same comment over and over again, and you have paid no attention to responses that you 1) tendentious misinterpret sources and 2) do not understand that Wikipedia articles are about concepts (in this case, the theory that there was no historical Jesus) rather than phrases ("Christ myth theory"). This is wasting huge amounts of time, filling up way too many talk page archives, and holding back progress on the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By "Boyd" BruceGrubb seems to be referring to Eddy & Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic 2007). They believe that the Gospels are largely historically reliable (a "maximalist" position). Anybody who thinks that there's a historical core to the Gospels, but that much of the material in them is theological elaboration and therefore much of the Gospel narrative isn't historical, gets called a "legendary Jesus" theorist by Eddy/Boyd. That includes a lot of mainstream scholarship, like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman. Nevertheless Eddy/Boyd make distinctions among legendary Jesus theorists, and group advocates of a nonhistorical Jesus together. Wells has responded to Eddy/Boyd in his 2009 book Cutting Jesus Down to Size, and complains (quite legitimately) that Eddy/Boyd haven't read his most recent books carefully, because he (Wells) now thinks that there was a historical Jesus. There's been some talk page discussion about this: Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_33#G._A._Wells. Now, I think Eddy/Boyd are idiosyncratic in creating this category of "legendary Jesus theorists", but it's important to note that even for them, the CMT is in a category of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And it might be worth quoting Eddy/Boyd, pp. 24-25, where they break down categories of what they term the legendary-Jesus thesis. Category 1 is the CMT: "1. Scholars such as Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G. A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually—perhaps entirely—fictional in nature (i.e. 'legendary' as we are using the term). Indeed, it might be more accurate to refer to this position as the mythic-Jesus thesis rather than the legendary-Jesus thesis inasmuch in common parlance 'myth' tends to connote a fictitious story that revolves around an ostensibly historical figure. In any event, this view holds that view have no good grounds for thinking any aspect of the Jesus narrative is rooted in history, including the very existence of an actual historical person named Jesus. Some scholars we could include in this category, such as Robert Price, would back off this thesis slightly and argue that we simply lack sufficient information to decide whether a historical Jesus existed. Here, a sort of 'Jesus agnosticism' emerges." The phrase "Christ myth theory" doesn't appear here, but when the phrase does appear in the book, it's always to this category 1 position, e.g. p. 165: "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorist argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can no very little about him. Others (i.e. Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend." On the following page Earl Doherty is called a Christ myth theorist; elsewhere G. A. Wells is called a Christ myth theorist. Eddy/Boyd use "Christ myth theory" in the same sense as this article, and name some of the same people this article discusses as prominent advocates of the theory; this recent academic book supports the definition of this article, instead of questioning it as BruceGrubb claims. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would remind Akhilleus that he made no point regarding "Wikipedia articles are about concepts" when Eugene was doing his "Christ myth theory" phrase nonsense on this talk page. For future reference, I would ask just exactly where in the Wikipedia rules and guild-lines this statement is made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICDEF. Point #2 under "Wikipedia is not a dictionary": "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." --Akhilleus (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the first paragraphs of this article to provide more detail to the central arguments that underlie the Christ myth theory, as well as to try to make it more NPOV.

I notice that User:Bill the Cat 7 removed my changes with the comment "He misunderstands what the CMT is and also seems to be pushing a POV." The goal of my changes is to make the article more consistent with the theory, and to make the article more neutral and NPOV.

Since User:Bill the Cat 7 offered no additional details for why these changes should be removed, I am reinstating them for now, with the following justification provided below. I understand that some may be attached to the previous version, but think it would be better for the integrity of the article if you do not revert the changes without providing a detailed justification that can be evaluated by the community.

I believe that I have added a number of facts which are generally undisputed by both proponents and opponents of the CMT. These facts are important for the reader to know about from the outset. Here are the changes and the reasons for them:

1) Added the word "legendary" with a link to the "Legend" wikipedia article. This is justified by the use of this term by proponents of CMT as described in this article. The next sentence, both original and as I revised it, support the use of the word "legend" to describe the position of some CMT proponents.

2) Changed "Additionally, some proponents of the theory allow that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity."

to

"Some proponents of the theory posit that some of the events or sayings associated with the Jesus figure in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity. "

The use of the term "allow" has an implied POV, as it presents the argument in relation to the opposing POV, as if they are conceding a point in a debate, whereas the word "posit" is neutral without reference to an opposing POV.

3) Changed "They give priority to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians, contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, and draw on perceived parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods."

to

"They give priority to the earlier Christian writings, the epistles, over the later texts, the "gospels", in determining the views of the earliest Christians and note many parallels between the biography of Jesus and those of Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan gods. Some suggest that Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism."

The rationale for this change is to help the reader understand the relative time frame in which the epistles and the gospels were written. The epistles are earlier than the gospels, and this helps explain why someone would put more emphasis on them in understanding the views of the earliest Christians. I believe that the word "perceived" could be seen as a pejorative adjective that is being used to push the oppositional POV and should not be included. The parallels between the biography of Jesus and others are factual, well-documented and not in dispute (e.g. virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, miraculous cures), though their relevance and the explanation for the parallels certainly is contested. Not all proponents of the theory agree that "Christianity may have emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism", so I changed the wording to reflect this fact.

3) Changed "absence of extant reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the scarcity of non-Christian reference to him in the first century." to

"the absence of any contemporaneous historical reference to Jesus during his lifetime and the unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the few non-Christian references to the Jesus figure in the first century C. E."

The original version of this sentence is incomplete in its summary of the arguments and evidence for the theory. The issue is not just that there are no extant references to Jesus, but that there is no contemporaneous historical evidence whatsoever. This is a fact, undisputed by both sides of the argument, and it should be included at the outset. It is also an undisputed fact that the authenticity of the non-Christian documents allegedly referencing Jesus is uncertain. The unresolved dispute over the authenticity of the Josephus quote is a good example of the factual basis of the second part of the revised statement. The original weak description is advantageous to the oppositional POV and does not provide all of the facts.

4) Changed

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians, most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship."

to

"While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it has little support among biblical scholars. While Christian scholars have sometimes accused proponents of the theory of pseudo-scholarship, most Bible scholars allow that the documentation of the life of Jesus is quite weak."

a) I removed the reference to "classical historians" because all of the sources referenced are bible scholars (i.e. professors with degrees in theology or bible studies from theological institutions), not classical historians (i.e. professors with degrees in classical history from secular institutions). Unless there is evidence that there are no classical historians who support at least some version of the CMT, the original assertion is not factually correct and is misleading.

b) The accusations of pseudo-scholarship can, and do, come from both sides of the issue. Documentation of ad hominem attacks is not particularly helpful to the reader, but it should at least be balanced with a counterargument. I have provided a counter-balancing statement with a reference to a leading proponent of the theory, Dan Barker.

c) The goal here is to make this sentence more balanced in POV, rather than to emphasize just the POV of those who oppose CMT.

d) It is more accurate to say the theory has "little support" among bible scholars. To say it is "essentially without support", overstates the case, as obviously the theory itself is one that has historically been presented and defended by some bible scholars.

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Context and Definition section, I made some similar changes to reflect the facts and provide more context and to make it more NPOV.

Changed "Modern scholarship generally believes that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." to "The majority of Christian Bible scholars believe that Jesus was born between 7 and 4 BC and was crucified around AD 30." The term "modern scholarship" is overly general as a noun in this case, and is really an unprovable assertion, as "modern scholarship" cannot be said to be 100% in agreement with the oppositional POV. "The majority of Christian Bible scholars" more accurately describes the group of people who represent the oppositional POV.

"Modern scholarship generally believes" is accurate; "Christian Bible scholars" seems to say that all bible scholars are Christians. Perhaps you just meant "the majority of New Testament scholars"? But that wouldn't capture the full range of scholars who have written about Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself are known. Further, no account of Jesus' actions and teachings were produced during his lifetime." to "Multiple documents written during the first century purport to describe Jesus' ministry, but no extant writings from Jesus himself or any of his contemporaries, Christian or non-Christian, have ever been found. Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from that time period." This more accurately reflects the undisputed facts that are the basis of the CMT. The previous version is a weaker version that supports the oppositional POV by omission of important facts. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard claim would be that the letters of Paul and the Gospels are "extant historical documents from that time period" that record Jesus' existence. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "that time period"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "that time period" is intended to refer to "his lifetime". All scholars agree that the letters of Paul and the Gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus. How about changing this to: "Not only was no account of Jesus' actions and teachings produced during his lifetime, there is no record of his existence in any of the extant historical documents from the period of time that the New Testament says he lived." Does that make it clearer? PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Changed "The Christ myth theory, however, stands entirely outside this continuum. It argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, simply never existed at all." to "In contrast, the Christ myth theory argues that Jesus of Nazareth, the central figure of the Christian faith, either never existed at all, or is a legendary figure whose actual existence simply cannot be proven." This more accurately reflects the range of opinion that exists within the CMT camp. This range of opinion is well-documented within the article and is also stated from the outset in both the original and my revised version of the second sentence of the article.