Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
Excessive and Off-Topic In-Line Quotes and Notes
Start of this thread
I'm starting this section to address the many in-line citations to quotes and notes. These are excessive and I am not familiar with another article that has nearly as many. The way I see it, there are 4 primary issues with these:
1. The current formatting makes portions of the article very difficult to read. This could be partially alleviated by using standard reference formatting instead of the words "quote" and "note," which serve to break up the text.
2. Many of the quotes would be better-served as simple references. As just one example, the three quotes in the first sentence of the article could be removed and replaced with ordinary citations. This would be especially appropriate in the intro which would be best-served by a consensus definition, without need for quoting individual mythicists.
3. The notes are interesting and seem to be the product of a substantial amount of care. However, they are often off-topic to the subject of the page and are not generally helpful or illuminating to CMT. For example, look at the sentence "A central question is how these communities developed . . . which were deemed heretical by proto-orthodox Christianity." This is followed by three lengthy in-line citations that provide interesting background, but do not serve this page. Even though much work has clearly gone into these notes and quotes, they are not doing a service to an encyclopedic entry on CMT. Excising them entirely would likely improve the page.
4. Related to 1 & 3 - the many citations make the article feel like an academic article instead of an encyclopedia. Other articles on this site do not have these lengthy, in-line discursions. Magic1million (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm starting this section to address the many in-line citations to quotes and notes. These are excessive. I agree.
- The current formatting makes portions of the article very difficult to read. This could be partially alleviated by using standard reference formatting instead of the words "quote" and "note," which serve to break up the text. I agree.
- Many of the quotes would be better-served as simple references. I agree.
- the many citations make the article feel like an academic article instead of an encyclopedia-I am not sure about that, a lot of them are stating at length the arguments and positions of Richard Carrier, who is not an academic. Neither of course is Earl Doherty, also referred to many times.
- Excising them entirely would likely improve the page. I agree.
- Smeat75 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Footnotes proper
- Help:Footnotes - Footnotes providing tangential information are a normal function.
- Wikipedia:Citing sources § Additional annotation - A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source.
The topic of this article is contentious and requires the absolute maximum in "Footnotes providing tangential information" and annotations of the "relevant exact quotation from the source".
The current formatting makes portions of the article very difficult to read
— User:Magic1million
No it does not. If we are talking about "Footnotes/Endnotes", only the markers appear in other sections that are not "footnote sections" - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding the formatting, I started to reformat the extensive references with quotes into "quotes," to make it clear where in the articke extra information can be found, and where "only" standard refrences can be found. Next step would be to judge which quotes could be shortened, or grouped together. NB: the way the notes, and the references with quotes, are organised, is smart: not inline, but in a separate section, with named references. This makes editing the article itself much easier. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following sections are all "Footnotes/Endnotes" :
- Notes
- Quotes
- References
- Corresponding to the following group names:
- note
- quote
- default i.e. no group name
- Per Footnotes:
- They can be combined into one group or further divided.
- They can have any group name.
- Footnote markers can be numeric, alpha or roman characters. see Template:Notelist
- Nesting footnotes or Bundling citations is also possible.
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following sections are all "Footnotes/Endnotes" :
- Joshua Jonathan, the WP guide you cited answers the question "What goes in footnotes?" But I do not see it as answering the question of how many footnotes there should be. Which is to say that tangential information can be included in footnotes, but that does not mean it should be included. In addition, many of the "quote" citations in the article do not follow the WP guide you cited. As I read the policy, quote citations are meant to provide "relevant exact quotation from the source" in situations where only part of a quote is presented. That is not how the quote cites are used in this article. For example, every quote cite in the first paragraph of the Section "Jesus and the origins of Christianity" follows something that is not a quote. I sense that you may not be the only person who feels that these notes and quotes are merited because the subject matter of this article is contentious. However, there are many articles on Wikipedia that deal with contentious topics and do not have these excessive annotations. Magic1million (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently, many of those quotes are actually notes. Some India-related articles have a lot of notes. Thus, there is a parallel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Even assuming that some India-related articles do this, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles do not have these excessive citations to extraneous information. I think there is a reason why, which is that this supplemental information does not improve the quality of the article. If the information backs up what is cited, it should be a reference. If it's important to understanding the subject of the article, it should be in the main text instead of a note. But if it provides only an aside, no matter how interesting or well-researched, it shouldn't be in this article. It seems a lot of work went into writing these notes and gathering the quotations. Perhaps the content can be worked into the main text of the entries on other topics. Magic1million (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Please give an example. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)this supplemental information does not improve the quality of the article.
— User:Magic1million- I am happy to give a few examples. In the introduction, what is currently "Note 2" regarding the crucifixion would be better served as a wikilink on the word crucified pointing to the Historicity section of the Crucifixion article. Current "Note 3" is interesting, but the reference is already clear by way of introduction as the "Roman province of Judea." Further, Note 3 does not illuminate the subject of "Christ myth theory." Note 4's discussion of the history of heresy concerns is far afield from what is needed on this article about CMT. The current "Note 6" (a confusingly-worded note about the negative to the argument for silence) is a good example of a note whose content should appear in the main text if it merits being included. The current quotes 5, 6, and 7 could all just be simple references, if anything. I could give many more examples. Magic1million (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- None of these notes decrease the quality of the article, nor do they make the article less easy to read. You have not cited any WP policy that would prohibit these notes. – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've started to take a closer look at the quotes: see where they exactly fit in, added info to one quote, removed one quote from the lead. I'll see if those "quotes" should be mentioned as "notes"; in case if they're proper quotes, in addition to references, I'll consider to separate them, and list the reference sec as a proper reference, and the quote as an additional note. Renaming the quotes as quotes is helpfull in this regard; it makes it easier to single out referemces with quotes from references sec. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
To the unregistered user's concerns, I would say that these do, indeed, decrease the quality of the article. I am not the only person on this talk page who views the notes and quotes as lessening the overall quality of the article (see Smeat75's comments in response to the original post in this Talk section). As to WP policies, I would first note that the quotes do not fit with the WP Quotes policy, as discussed above. But, on a more general level, I think the notes/quotes are covered by WP:Not. Specifically, the following portions of the WP:Not policy:
1. Encyclopedic Content: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."
2. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal: Specifically, the admonition that Wikipedia articles should not be written like "Textbooks and annotated texts." I think it would be hard to characterize this article, in its current form, as something other than an "annotated text."
The next two policies also apply, albeit perhaps with somewhat less force.
3. WP:SOAP: A number of the notes read as opinion pieces on different preferred theories by the author. That's all fine and well on a blog, but not on an encyclopedic page. Some of the opinions are interesting, but they do not have a place here, whether in the main text or notes.
4. WP:DIRECTORY: Although this policy relates primarily to lists of quotes, I think the spirit of the rule applies to the many quotes presented here. Per the policy, "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Magic1million (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hereafter I uses the following non-standardized definitions for WP page content:
- Body text - the sections of main content of the article. i.e. specifically not the sections defined as "Footnotes/Endnotes".
- Footnotes/Endnotes - the sections of supplemental content of the article. i.e. specifically not "inline text".
- Inline text - content that is in the "Body text".
- Footnote text - content that is in the "Footnotes/Endnotes".
- Markers - characters in the "Body text" that refer to an item in the "Footnotes/Endnotes".
- The following sections are all "Footnotes/Endnotes" :
- Notes
- Quotes
- References
- Corresponding to the following group names:
- note
- quote
- default i.e. no group name
- In general the WP policies you note are intended for "Body text".
WP:SOAP: A number of the notes read as opinion pieces on different preferred theories by the author.
— User:Magic1million- Please elaborate on what you mean by "the author".
- Please give one example (and only 1 at this time).
WP:DIRECTORY: Although this policy relates primarily to lists of quotes, I think the spirit of the rule applies to the many quotes presented here.
— User:Magic1million- Your reading of WP:DIRECTORY is tendentious. This claim is without merit as WP:DIRECTORY is clearly referring primarily to the "Body text".
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why policies about what merits inclusion in an article's body text should not also apply to what is included in lengthy footnotes. Even if some other standard applies (which is an inference you are making from the policy, but one that is not stated there), the many annotations still fail WP:Not's admonition that articles not be written as an "annotated text." That policy plainly applies to annotations like footnotes. This article has far too many annotations and those annotations are largely off-topic to the article.
- re: WP:SOAP - "the author" refers to "the author of the note." Although I used "the author" as a shorthand, I concede that any given note may have multiple authors.
- re: WP:DIRECTORY, I acknowledged that the explicit terms of the policy do not apply. But I think the spirit of the policy is clear, as discussed before.
- I hope that we can move forward with deleting the many annotations and/or converting them into standard references. Magic1million (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This article has far too many annotations
— User:Magic1million- Please cite the WP policy for how many is to many. And please elaborate on how any given number of footnotes makes this article hard to read.
- Tangential: hardly touching a matter; peripheral.
- Tangential footnotes are standard per "Footnotes/Endnotes". - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Please cite the WP policy for how many is to many.
— User:74.138.111.159
The relevant policy is the "Annotated Text" policy. It would be impossible for such a policy to set a firm number, and it is a judgment call. But right now, it reads like an annotated text and the notes are excessive.
And please elaborate on how any given number of footnotes makes this article hard to read
— User:74.138.111.159
I think I have been clear on this in my original post. They break up the page and make it hard for the eye to follow the text (for an example, look at the current intro section of "Overview of Main Arguments"). When moused over, they add a large block of text that is difficult to read.
Tangential footnotes are standard per "Footnotes/Endnotes".
— User:74.138.111.159
I do not believe you are giving a fair reading to the WP Footnote page, which is a How-to about formatting footnotes and answers a different question than what you are using it for. It cannot be the case that the Footnote how-to authorizes placing lots of tangential information into footnotes, because that would run up against WP:NOT's admonition that this is not an "Annotated Text." In addition, the usage is not justified under citation policies such as:
1. WP:OVERCITE generally, and, specifically, the first bullet point here.
2. The extra scrutiny governing use of quotes in articles about fringe theories.
3. WP:BOMBARDMENT, cautioning against "Overloading an article with dubious and tangential citations"
I could go on, and I have gone to some length talking about why these excessive citations should go. Having answered at length, I would be curious to hear any viewpoints about how the Notes and Quotes are helping the article (if at all) and why they should stay. Magic1million (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- As a point of comparison, look how much cleaner the citations were when this article was still listed as a Good Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&oldid=345141037 (edit: Albeit still containing a number of footnotes ripe for editing/removal) Magic1million (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:FN, Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:
- references (bibliographic citations)
- explanatory information
- source information for tables and other elements.
- Per the footnotes of tangential explanatory information and of directly relevant explanatory information (both a standard function of footnotes). You overstate the density of Markers of said footnotes in relation to the length/size of the "Body text", clearly this article is not an "annotated work" in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
I would be curious to hear any viewpoints about how the Notes and Quotes are helping the article (if at all) and why they should stay.
— User:Magic1million- I have never seen a more contentious article than this one, requiring the absolute maximum in many relevant quotes of the cited sources in footnotes (a standard function of footnotes) to clarify the many disparate viewpoints held by mythicists and to present a WP:NPOV presentation of their viewpoints.
look how much cleaner the citations were when this article was still listed as a Good Article
— User:Magic1million- This 20 February 2010 revision supports the claim: Many relevant quotes of the cited sources in footnotes are needed to clarify the many disparate viewpoints held by mythicists and to present a WP:NPOV presentation of their viewpoints. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than go around in circles on this, do we at least have consensus on reformatting the citations so they appear as standard numeral cites instead of the word "quote" or "note"? Magic1million (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Per WP:FN, Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:
For a more (or at least equally) contentious topic that handles all these issues better, see Holocaust denial. There are some long footnotes in that article, but they are directly relevant to the text and subject matter. They are presented as ordinary cites. And, by in large, the most important points are worked into the main text rather than leaning on long quotes and detailed asides. And, relevant to my previous post, all references use the standard single numeral form, which breaks up the eye-line much less. Magic1million (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Academic status
Per Gullotta (2017): "[Some mythicists] hold degrees in relevant fields, such as biblical studies, ancient history, and classics. [...] These more noteworthy individuals include the late G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Brodie, Raphael Lataster, and Richard C. Carrier." - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Smeat75. If anybody cares. Carrier and Doherty do have academic degrees, but I am sure what was meant was that they have no academic standing. They have no jobs in the respective fields. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03
- 22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Jesus Project Fellow Carrier @ https://web.archive.org/web/20161222063910/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows/carrier_richard/
- Westar Fellow Carrier @ https://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/richard-carrier/
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Apart from evangelical/fundamentalist works and other than Case (1928) [first pub. 1912], please list the peer-reviewed works specifically on the question of the "Historicity of Jesus". - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- These are not jobs in the field. It's not as though either of them got hired at a University like Oxford or Harvard. One of these is a defunct voluntary position and the other is a voluntary position with the Jesus Seminar people whose academic reputation is also virtually nill. Might as well admire Pat Robertson for volunteering at the religious right. Carrier's (and Doherty's) main occupation is blogger. *Jesus Project Fellow Carrier @ https://web.archive.org/web/20161222063910/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows/carrier_richard/*Westar Fellow Carrier @ https://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/richard-carrier/ Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I thought there was sign of a more cooperative atmostphere here, but I find all this ad hominen extremely distressing. Kindly withdraw it. The article is supposed to be about a historical issue, so what matters is what people say, not where their income comes from. I have changed Carrier's label from "Atheist activist" to "Historian", which is what he is in this context. (Perhaps he's an "atheist activist", perhaps he's a Republican voter, perhaps he's pro/anti-gun lobbyist...) Please do not put this back, or "Christian apologist" should preced every Christian mentioned. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not necessary to label Carrier an "atheist activist" but I think it is misleading to call him a "historian". He does not hold any academic position as a historian or anything else. Strictly speaking I would say he is a freelance writer and blogger, focusing almost entirely on this fringe theory which has zero support among academic historians. I don't see why he needs a "label" at all, just call him by his name.Smeat75 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see that Doherty is referred to as a "Canadian writer" so I changed Carrier's "label" to "American author" which I think is neutral, I do not accept "historian".Smeat75 (talk) 11:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not necessary to label Carrier an "atheist activist" but I think it is misleading to call him a "historian". He does not hold any academic position as a historian or anything else. Strictly speaking I would say he is a freelance writer and blogger, focusing almost entirely on this fringe theory which has zero support among academic historians. I don't see why he needs a "label" at all, just call him by his name.Smeat75 (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- I thought there was sign of a more cooperative atmostphere here, but I find all this ad hominen extremely distressing. Kindly withdraw it. The article is supposed to be about a historical issue, so what matters is what people say, not where their income comes from. I have changed Carrier's label from "Atheist activist" to "Historian", which is what he is in this context. (Perhaps he's an "atheist activist", perhaps he's a Republican voter, perhaps he's pro/anti-gun lobbyist...) Please do not put this back, or "Christian apologist" should preced every Christian mentioned. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- These are not jobs in the field. It's not as though either of them got hired at a University like Oxford or Harvard. One of these is a defunct voluntary position and the other is a voluntary position with the Jesus Seminar people whose academic reputation is also virtually nill. Might as well admire Pat Robertson for volunteering at the religious right. Carrier's (and Doherty's) main occupation is blogger. *Jesus Project Fellow Carrier @ https://web.archive.org/web/20161222063910/http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject/fellows/carrier_richard/*Westar Fellow Carrier @ https://www.westarinstitute.org/membership/westar-fellows/fellows-directory/richard-carrier/ Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The point here is that it doesn't matter what you personally think of Carrier or if agree with any of his beliefs or not. We are not about "truth" here. Blog if that's your goal.
— User:Jenhawk777
- "independent historian Richard Carrier"
- Lataster, Raphael (2014). "Richard Carrier: On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014; pp. xiv + 696". Journal of Religious History. 38 (4): 614–616. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.12219.
- "historian Richard Carrier"
- Bethune, Brian (2016). "Did Jesus really exist?". Macleans.ca. No. Macleans March 28, 2016. Rogers Media.
{{cite news}}
: External link in
(help)|issue=
- Bethune, Brian (2016). "Did Jesus really exist?". Macleans.ca. No. Macleans March 28, 2016. Rogers Media.
- "Richard Carrier is an independent scholar"
- Gullotta, Daniel N. (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2–3): 310–346. doi:10.1163/17455197-01502009.
74.138.111.159 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- 74.138.111.159--Inserted comment here just so I can say, solid burn, I am laughing, and you are totally right--of course. I deserved that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Right, "independent scholar" is also neutral. I will change Carrier's "label" to that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- As someone who has been labeling people in this article lately[1], I think that in general, what they are called here should rhyme with their WP-articles, if they have one. Richard Carrier puts historian first. If that's wrong, it should change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- See Other stuff exists.Smeat75 (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. It says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to change Carrier's article, go ahead. I am not interested in possibly getting into an argument or defending a change over there, I am only concerned about this one.Smeat75 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. It says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- See Other stuff exists.Smeat75 (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- As someone who has been labeling people in this article lately[1], I think that in general, what they are called here should rhyme with their WP-articles, if they have one. Richard Carrier puts historian first. If that's wrong, it should change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Right, "independent scholar" is also neutral. I will change Carrier's "label" to that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Title
And thank you for reminding me of that peer reviewed article on Carrier's book in the academic journal "Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus" which Gullotta begins by saying The Jesus Myth theory is the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence. So much more clear and accurate than the rather torturous definition we have on this article. That's what it is.Smeat75 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- And he also says:
Originally known as the ‘Christ Myth theory,’ this school of thought has more recently adopted the moniker ‘Jesus Myth theory’ or ‘mythicism’. Those who support this theory call themselves ‘mythicists’ and label those who maintain the view that Jesus did exist as a historical human person as ‘historicists’.
- It is certainly time to rename this article. 74.138.111.159 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Jesus myth theory" is already mentioned in the lead. Google:
- "Jesus myth theory": Google all 47,000 hits, Google books 15, Google scholar 20 hits
- "Christ myth theory": Google all 27,300 hits, Google books 40 hits, Google scholar 161 hits
- "Christ," of course, is by definition mythological, whereas "Jesus" may refer to a historical person. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Jesus myth theory" is already mentioned in the lead. Google:
- Changing the introductory language to that suggested by Smeat75 is sensible and will make the introduction much cleaner and more straightforward. As for the name change, it seems that "Jesus myth theory" may be more accurate, but given that CMT appears to be the more accepted term in scholarship, it probably makes sense to keep that as the article name. Magic1million (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
In regards to WP:weight, the term "Christ myth theory" is deprecated in the newest works, i.e. of those works specifically on the question of the "Historicity of Jesus".
- Ceteris paribus, the moniker used in newer works should be used.
See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Age matters - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Intro
Per the new lede:
Gullotta: "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence." | Ehrman: "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity". |
The Gullotta quote has more WP:weight, but it is not a case of ceteris paribus:
- Most leading mythicists do not hold the view that "of Nazareth" is a requirement for historicity.
- Ehrman's quote is more comprehensive.
Jesus mythicism is:
- The construction of a theory which will explain the origin of Christianity.
- A statement of the reasons for believing that Jesus cannot have been an historical person.
The new lede eliminates the presentation of a primary point of Jesus mythicism. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- 74.138.111.159, you cited Gullotta re Carrier being an "independent scholar" so obviously you accept that Gullotta is a reliable academic source. I quoted his definition but did not want to alter the lead without consensus. User:Joshua Jonathan changed it to Gullotta's definition, Magic1million says the change is "sensible...much cleaner and more straightforward." That is pretty overwhelming consensus. I think the new definition is vastly better than the way it was before.Smeat75 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- This lede is cleaner and more straightforward:
The Jesus myth theory (also known as the • • •) is the proposition that Christianity originated from a syncretistic and mythological Jewish theology and that "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity".
Most mythicists question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels regarding the historicity of Jesus; they note the lack of information on Jesus in non-Christian sources from the first and early second century; and they argue that this early Christianity is reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels.
- I changed the lead per WP:BOLD, but I'm totally open to discussion in this regard, so consensus is not final yet. 74 may have a point regarding "Jesus of Nazareth." And he certainly has a point when stating that the Cmt is alos about the mythological origins of Christianity; the discussion on "historical existence yes/no" bypasses the earlier nuances in this debate, which our article also indicates. In this respect, the former lead may have been better. The lead used to say:
The Christ myth theory (also known as [...]) is the proposition that Christianity started with the belief in a new deity, named Jesus, "who was later historicized" in the Gospels, which are "essentially allegory and fiction". Alternatively in "simpler terms"—given by Bart Ehrman as per his criticism of mythicism—"the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity".
- Another proposal may be:
The Christ myth theory (also known as [...]) is the proposition that Christianity started with the belief in a saviour deity, named Jesus, which originated in a syncretistic and mystical Jewish theology as reflected in the Pauline epistles, and "who was later historicized" in the Gospels. Alternatively, in simpler terms given by Bart Ehrman as per his criticism of mythicism, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity".
- Skip "new" and "allegory and fiction." Skip also "mythological"; it implies an opposition toward other forms of theology which are nit mythological. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- This new proposal is the best.
- Possible changes:
saviour [[deity]] → [[Soteriology|soteriological]] [[deity]]
mystical Jewish theology → mystical [[Hellenistic Judaism|Hellenized Jewish]] [[theology]]
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't put the Gullotta definition into the article because I didn't really want to open up this kind of argument again, I just said I thought it was better. However now it is there I think it should stay. We do not know better than him what the CM theory is. "Christianity started with the belief in a new deity, named Jesus, "who was later historicized" in the Gospels" is pure Richard Carrier, he is not the only "mythicist", the simpler definition covers them all.Smeat75 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:SOURCETYPESWhen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources - the adapted definition that Joshua put back in has two longish quotes, one from Carrier and the other from Doherty. Neither of them are academics, Carrier is an "independent scholar" and Doherty a blogger. The Gullotta is from exactly an "academic and peer-reviewed publication, scholarly monograph" and must be preferred according to WP guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also see WP:RSSELF Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. "Earl Doherty self-published a 2005 re-release of The Jesus Puzzle under his own imprint, Age of Reason Publications." Doherty is a self published author and should not be used anywhere in the article except in the section for his own views.Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:SOURCETYPESWhen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources - the adapted definition that Joshua put back in has two longish quotes, one from Carrier and the other from Doherty. Neither of them are academics, Carrier is an "independent scholar" and Doherty a blogger. The Gullotta is from exactly an "academic and peer-reviewed publication, scholarly monograph" and must be preferred according to WP guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't put the Gullotta definition into the article because I didn't really want to open up this kind of argument again, I just said I thought it was better. However now it is there I think it should stay. We do not know better than him what the CM theory is. "Christianity started with the belief in a new deity, named Jesus, "who was later historicized" in the Gospels" is pure Richard Carrier, he is not the only "mythicist", the simpler definition covers them all.Smeat75 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- "The Jesus Puzzle: Part One: A Conspiracy of Silence". Humanist in Canada. 114: 20–24. Autumn 1995.
- "The Jesus Puzzle: Part Two: Who was Christ Jesus?". Humanist in Canada. 115: 10–14, 31. Winter 1995–1996.
- "The Jesus Puzzle: Part Three: The Evolution of Jesus of Nazareth". Humanist in Canada. 116: 24–30, 38. Spring 1996.
- "The Jesus Puzzle: Postscript". Humanist in Canada. 117: 20–23, 38. Summer 1996.
- "The Jesus Puzzle: The Second Century: What the Christian apologists of the second century present us with". Humanist in Canada. 120. Spring 1997.
- "Book Review: Burton L. Mack - Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth". Humanist in Canada. 120: 12–13. Spring 1997.
- "The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins". Journal of Higher Criticism. 4 (2): 68–102. Fall 1997.
- Not self-published: Doherty, Earl (1999). The Jesus Puzzle. Canadian Humanist Publications. ISBN 978-0-9686014-0-2.
{{cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
- And the following should be acceptable:
- The Mythical Jesus viewpoint holds that "Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure".^1
- The Mythical Jesus viewpoint holds that "the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction".^1
- cite 1: Earl Doherty ap. Ehrman, Bart D. (20 March 2012). "An Introduction to the Mythical View of Jesus". Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins. pp. 12, 347, n. 1. ISBN 978-0-06-208994-6.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help) - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- cite 1: Earl Doherty ap. Ehrman, Bart D. (20 March 2012). "An Introduction to the Mythical View of Jesus". Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins. pp. 12, 347, n. 1. ISBN 978-0-06-208994-6.
- And the following should be acceptable:
Viewpoints of myth proponents that are not covered by Gullotta's simpler definition
|
---|
|
Gullotta never refutes or rejects Ehrman's expanded definition of mythicism so it is still usable.
Jesus mythicism (also known as [...]) is the proposition that Christianity started with the belief in a soteriological deity named Jesus, which originated in a syncretistic and a mystical Hellenized Jewish theology reflected in the Pauline epistles, and "who was later historicized" in the Gospels and "that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence." And Bart Ehrman—as per his criticism of mythicism—expands the definition of mythicism to include the qualifier: that if a historical Jesus existed then "he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."
74.138.111.159 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the new lede still needs work. I think the phrase "which lay in Jewish syncretism of the 1st century Hellenistic world." fails Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, specifically, "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." Magic1million (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I completely agree, thank you User:Joshua Jonathan for taking that phrase out.Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I just wanted to chime in to say the article intro is much cleaner and clearer now. Thank you to User:Joshua Jonathan for your work on this! Magic1million (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I completely agree, thank you User:Joshua Jonathan for taking that phrase out.Smeat75 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the new lede still needs work. I think the phrase "which lay in Jewish syncretism of the 1st century Hellenistic world." fails Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, specifically, "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." Magic1million (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Notice of neutrality dispute
I have lodged a dispute with the neutrality board. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thread is [2].Smeat75 (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- So weird to see the assertion that the authors of this article are believers in the CMT. Usually the complaints about this article are the exact opposite. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know! Hi --Akhilleus, good to see you here, things seem to be hotting up again here after a period of relative calm, please stick around.Smeat75 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- The structure of this article is a mess and aids in its non-neutrality. It should be half as long with 1/10th as many quotes. The subject of the article is the Christ Myth Theory. There are other articles that discuss more mainstream views. I do not understand why this article needs in-depth discussion of those theories, instead of very briefly contrasting them and/or noting the non-mainstream nature of the interpretations. I don't see why the "Traditional and modern Christian views," "Other religious views on Jesus," and "Mainstream historical view" subsections can't be cut entirely or substantially reduced into one sub-section. Some of the writing is sloppy and biased in either direction, likely the product of emotion and devotion rather than creating a straightforward encyclopedic entry. Some perceptions of bias could probably be reduced by cutting other sections substantially, as well. For example, the exhaustive (and exhausting) descriptions of the various proponents through time and the unnecessary quotes and in-line citations thereto.Magic1million (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to get consensus for those changes, I have reverted them. Especially changing the definition at the beginning, arrived at after years of arguing, must get consensus first. I agree that the sections on Traditional and then on Other religious views, added recently, are not necessary. Mainstream views must stay, we just had an editor arguing forcefully that the mainstream view is not represented adequately. I do agree that the article is too long and makes a simple idea unnecessarily complicated. Smeat75 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sensible and sorry for jumping the gun. I genuinely did not view the changes as controversial, thinking of them more as copy-editing than substantive changes. I was trying to "be bold" when I probably should have recognized that more caution is required in controversial topics like this.Magic1million (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to get consensus for those changes, I have reverted them. Especially changing the definition at the beginning, arrived at after years of arguing, must get consensus first. I agree that the sections on Traditional and then on Other religious views, added recently, are not necessary. Mainstream views must stay, we just had an editor arguing forcefully that the mainstream view is not represented adequately. I do agree that the article is too long and makes a simple idea unnecessarily complicated. Smeat75 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- So weird to see the assertion that the authors of this article are believers in the CMT. Usually the complaints about this article are the exact opposite. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- So who removed the tag and was it done with consensus? I will not lodge a protest because I live in hope this is all resolvable between reasonable people who just want to produce a good quality article. First is some recognition this article has become more and more non-neutral the more that has been added.
- Magic1million is right on target saying "The structure of this article is a mess and aids in its non-neutrality." I love this one too: "I do not understand why this article needs in-depth discussion of those theories, instead of very briefly contrasting them and/or noting the non-mainstream nature of the interpretations." I don't understand why this article needs such a long discussion of all the various points made repeatedly multiple times--with no mainstream view contrasting them at all. None. "Some of the writing is sloppy and biased"--and right now I am thanking my lucky stars I haven't written anything here yet... because that statement is entirely accurate as well. What this says is what I have been saying: both the structure and some of the actual writing are recognizable as biased and non-neutral. Taking down the tag doesn't change that.
- Magic1million offers an idea rather than denial. This is a brilliant suggestion which should be followed through imho: "Some perceptions of bias could probably be reduced by cutting other sections substantially, as well. For example, the exhaustive (and exhausting) descriptions of the various proponents through time and the unnecessary quotes and in-line citations thereto." I would love to see that happen--it too is without mainline context/contrast which is part of what makes this look more like a mythicist blog than a neutral and yet fully informative Wiki article.
- Magic1million please be bold some more! It prompted action that genuinely helped the article whereas all I did was get more unnecessary nonsense added. Sigh.Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Jenhawk77, you wrote before that you found this article to be well-structured, so I don't understand why you now state the opposite. The article gives an overview of the main arguments of mythicists, following a summary of those arguments as provided by Van Voorst. It then gives an overview of various mythicists, and it gives an overview of the main objections againts the mythicists pov. As has been noted so many times before: most scholars don't even bother to adress the Cmt. Frankly, I'm beginning to find your repetition of complaints to be WP:DISRUPTIVE, c.q. WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC) By the way, the tag was removed here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ummm ... well structured? How is my repetition of unaddressed issues disruptive when I haven't even been here in nearly two weeks? I don't think I have ever referred specifically to the structure of this article before. I have said I think the article is a mostly good article and I stand by that. I also stand by that it is not neutral and needs improvement. Those two ideas are not contradictory. I have said I agree every time someone else says the article needs to be shorter. I agree with anything that will improve neutrality. This article used to be a good article; now it isn't; I think it could be again. What do you think would get it from where it is now to where it would qualify as good again? What changes--if any--would you be in favor of? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Rewriting suggestions
A lot of the quotations of mainstream academics seem to be personal attacks or logical fallacies of some kind like blank statements and circular logic. It would probably be in this article's best interests to focus on solid arguments against the Christ myth hypothesis rather than going on tangents about mocking the qualifications of the proponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconfly (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry this was unsigned as it's a good and relevant comment. Being dismissive in general is not productive, but especially so here. The only requirement for recognizing the background of proponents and opponents is accuracy. Once that's given, it should be done. Ad hominem attacks are never good arguments. Agreed completely. What we may think of them personally is not relevant. If criticism is to be included, it should be along the lines of the topic itself, such as this: "Multiple critics note three common characteristics of Cmt: general dissatisfaction with the scholarly consensus, the use of old outdated scholarship that was often rejected when it was new, and the characteristics of conspiracy theory." But the single most important statement in this comment, to my way of thinking, is the assertion it is "in this article's best interests to focus on solid arguments". I wholeheartedly agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"Other, credible hypotheses" - such as Geza Vermes, "The Resurrection"
Geza vermez, in "The Resurrection" (2008) p.138-139 states that the exaltation of Jesus is the central belief of early Christianity. I think this is an interesting conclusion, since it implies that there was a historical Jesus, but also explains why his earthly life is not the focus point of Paul and the Gospels. The focus-point is that he was a righteous person, and therefore exalted after his death. This makes sense, I think. I've already been looking if this could be included, but I'm not sure if this is possible, nor if it isn't undue. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Does Vermes hold that per Exaltation Christology → After the Resurrection of Jesus, God exalted him to heaven and made him the anointed one, i.e. the Christ, and also his Son (see Son of God (Christianity)), therefore Jesus became divine (i.e. a god) and was not born divine.
- Per Ehrman (Feb 14, 2013). "Incarnation Christology, Angels, and Paul". The Bart Ehrman Blog.: "I have argued that different Christians in the early decades of the Christian movement maintained that Jesus had been exalted to a divine status at some point of his existence – at his resurrection, at his baptism, at his birth. I have called this a christology from below, or an “exaltation” christology; it is sometimes called a low christology because it understands Jesus to have started out as a human (down here with us) and to have been raised to a divine status."
- Cf. Ehrman, Bart D. (2014). How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-225219-7. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this further, and I still feel it's relevant. For what I know about it, maonstream scholarship is not concerned with a digital answer to a simple question about 'Jesus yes/no', but is concerned with with complex origins, and a narrative that is rooted in Jewish religious thinking of the time. That is, scholarship gives better explanations than 'Jesus existed yes/no'. Scholarship tells about what the fiorst Christians likely believed, and how their beliefs developed, in a way that makes sense in the context of that time, even/also if it does not make sense in a strictly natural way of thinking/explaining common in our times. An addition to the subsection "Mainstream historical view," something like
Mainstream scholarship places the development of early Christianity in the context of 1st century Jewish religiosity, in which a belief in resurrection developed in opposition against the Roman occupation. While the resurrection became a vocal point for Christianity, the early Jerusalem community seems to have focused on the exaltation of Jesus due to his righteousness, and the expected return of Jesus to judge the living and dead. The lack of information on a historical Jesus is to be understood in this context, in which the focus was on the fulfillment of God's promises, and not on the earthly life of a material man.
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure about this, the focus of this article needs to stay on "did Jesus exist or not" and why the sources on either side of the question say what they do. This material might be more suitable for Early Christianity. mainstream scholarship is not concerned with a digital answer to a simple question about 'Jesus yes/no' -most mainstream historians and other scholars consider the question silly and do not bother to engage with it unless asked, any more than Egpytologists bother to refute "Did space aliens build the pyramids?" However in recent years Maurice Casey "emeritus professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature" and Bart D. Ehrman, author of college textbooks and over seventeen books for Harvard and Oxford University Presses, both as mainstream as it is possible to be, have written whole books on the "binary"question "did Jesus exist" - answer, yes, for sure. ( Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? and Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth respectively.) The lack of information on a historical Jesus is to be understood in this context - this is more or less the central fallacy of Christ mythers. It is simply incorrect to say that there is a "lack of information on a historical Jesus" as several historians are quoted in the article as saying, for instance Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University has written...Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity."Smeat75 (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Smeat75. It might be interesting but seems off topic for this particular article.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Van Voorst (2000) argues against the Cmt that Wells and others do not offer alternative "other, credible hypotheses" for the origins of Christianity. So, some relevance? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Two places, actually, which are good places to add info:
- Mainstream historical view: somewhere in this section.
- Pauline epistles - mainstream view: why was there no need for Paul to elaborate?
- NB: it's been quite a while since I read all this stuff on the origins of Christianity, so I don't have a concrete proposal with references; I was hoping someone else could make a further suggestion... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- The primary problem in an alternative explanation for the origins of Christianity is chronology. This is referenced in nearly every discussion of the origins of Christianity as possibly "mythic" or legendary from Will Durant to Eddy and Boyd. Will Durant, who identified himself as a "reluctant atheist", in his Pulitzer winning book "Caesar and Christ" (1-56731-014-1) concludes on page 554: "...Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome and pictured them as (64 AD) already numbering adherents throughout the empire; the paragraph is so Tacitean in style, force and prejudice that of all biblical critics only Drews questions its authenticity. Seutonius mentions the same persecution, and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52)...the passage accords with the Acts of the Apostles which mentions a decree of Claudius "that the Jews should leave Rome." These prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ, but unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis that Jesus was invented in one generation; moreover, we must suppose that the Christiuan community in Rome had been established some years before 52 to merit the attention of an imperial decree" making the time frame possible for that invention even smaller.
- James Dunn in "Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians" also notes the extremely short time period. On page 98 he points out that whether the Jesus' tradition can be plausibly accounted for by the "legendary" thesis hinges on the plausibility of a group of first century Palestinian Second Temple monotheistic Jews being inclined to create, embrace and propagate a fictitious legend about a miracle working divine man who was to be given the worship their lives, training and community led them to believe was due only to Yahweh himself. Then they would spend the rest of their lives suffering beatings, expulsion and death rather than abandon what they knew to be invented. Hengel also points out the problem with time. Eddy and Boyd do.
- From the dates Jesus--supposedly--died, laying out everything about Paul's activities till his approximate date of death means he converted within one to three years after the date given for Jesus' death, meeting more than once with those who had known Jesus including his brother. Paul includes multiple references to pre-Pauline material "passed down to him" by these men thereby shrinking the time for invention to a few short years.
- Even Barton Mack, who reduces the whole New Testament to sociological myth, admits that this would involve "mythologizing a founder of very recent memory."
- Attributing the invention of Jesus to Mark becomes even more problematic. Then there is all the evidence for Christianity and the worship of Christ existing before Jesus was invented by Mark. Chronology.
- On page 557 of his aforementioned work Durant concludes: "[Gospel] contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the Gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries, Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred worthies--e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates--would fade into Legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed... After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of western man."
- It is my opinion that going down this line of thinking will only open a can of worms for this article. I don't think you want to go there or that it adds value here.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- "[Per] Richard Bauckham: "The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology." [cited: Bauckham, Richard (1998). God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. viii.] This is very true, and among Jews and with such speed it is hardly credible." —Doherty (2009). Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus. Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications. p. 716, n. 12. ISBN 978-0-9689259-2-8.
- "[Bart] Ehrman’s solution [of low (adoptionist) Christology] is that different Christianities developed differently and at different times; an opinion he shares with the mythicists." —Lataster (2016). "Review Essay: Bart Ehrman and the Elusive Historical Jesus". Literature & Aesthetics (26): 186. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize, I must be dense today but I am not following how this is applicable to whether or not to include discussion of either the resurrection or alternate theories of how Christianity got started. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Per Mack (1990), "The prevailing picture of Christian origins does need to be revised [...] All New Testament scholars are aware of textual material and historical data that cannot easily be reconciled [...] Some scholars are also aware that the literary and historical bases for the traditional reconstruction are very, very shaky. The picture itself has not yet budged, however, and will not budge until alternative explanations for the (sometimes very curious) data available are taken up for forthright discussion and evaluation." —Mack, Burton (1990). "All the Extra Jesuses". Semeia 49: The Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Origins. Society of Biblical Literature. {{cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help)
There does not appear to be a consensus on Christian origins, e.g. Bauckham and Ehrman appear to be each supporting a different Christology in regards to Christian origins.
Scholarship tells about what the first Christians likely believed, and how their beliefs developed, in a way that makes sense in the context of that time, even/also if it does not make sense in a strictly natural way of thinking/explaining common in our times.
— User:Joshua Jonathan
Vermes viewpoint appears to be equally notable when there is no consensus per Christology in regards to Christian origins. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ehrman, [How Jesus became God], course guidebook:
Over time, Christians who originally thought Jesus had become a divine being at the Resurrection came to think that, instead, he had been adopted to be divine at his baptism (as in the Gospel of Mark) or that he had been born as the Son of God (as in Matthew and Luke). Eventually, Christians moved beyond the idea that Jesus had become the Son of God to the notion that he had been God before coming into the world, a view we find in the writings of the apostle Paul and in the Gospel of John.
- That's relevant, I think, and is in line with Vermes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Ehrman: "Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human"
Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human.
See also Paul’s View of Jesus as an Angel, Christ as an Angel in Paul (10 april 2014), Christ as an Angel in Paul (7 juni 2014). Quite relevant, I think; it's a thin line between Jesus agnosticism and this kind of reasoning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Works discussing the influence of ancient philosophy on the thinking of Paul:
- Troels Engberg-Pedersen: Paul and the Stoics
- Th. D. Niko Huttunen: Paul and Epictetus on Law
- Abraham J. Malherbe: Paul and the Popular Philosophers
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Carrier seems to have had the same thought, regarding this 'thin line': Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God. Apparently, Paul's understanding of Jesus is the focal point of Cmt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nota bene: "Platonism" is not the same as "Middle Platonism", while Platonism provides foundation concepts such as “Demiurge” (demiourgós), the maker of heaven and earth as per Plato in his work Timaeus. Middle Platonism (often conjoined with Stoicism and Neopythagoreanism) is likely the basis of a Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism that influenced Paul′s Christology.
- Cf. YouTube: Published on Apr 14, 2015 by user wheatoncollege: Arthur F. Holmes | A History of Philosophy | Middle and Neo-Platonism @ https://youtu.be/Sic5OdUIkgk
- Cf. Stephen L. Huebscher (21 August 2017). “Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 5”. Dr. Michael Heiser Blog. [This is the 5th and final post in a series by guest blogger, Stephen Huebscher] @ http://drmsh.com/heavenly-worship-in-second-temple-judaism-early-christianity-and-gnostic-sects-part-5/
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC) && 00:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nota bene: "Platonism" is not the same as "Middle Platonism", while Platonism provides foundation concepts such as “Demiurge” (demiourgós), the maker of heaven and earth as per Plato in his work Timaeus. Middle Platonism (often conjoined with Stoicism and Neopythagoreanism) is likely the basis of a Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism that influenced Paul′s Christology.
"Middle Platonism (often conjoined with Stoicism and Neopythagoreanism) is likely the basis of a Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism that influenced Paul′s Christology."
We already have an article on Middle Platonism, though it could use expansion. Some of the proponents' beliefs were rather peculiar:
"The pre-eminent philosopher in this period, Plutarch (c. 45–120), defended the freedom of the will and the immortality of the soul. He sought to show that God, in creating the world, had transformed matter, as the receptacle of evil, into the divine soul of the world, where it continued to operate as the source of all evil." Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- And perhaps also notable:
- Kooten, Geurt Hendrik van (2003). Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School: Colossians and Ephesians in the Context of Graeco-Roman Cosmology, with a New Synopsis of the Greek Texts. Mohr Siebeck. p. 133. ISBN 978-3-16-148007-2.
[P]assages in Plato's Leges and Timaeus are evidence of a small yet undeniable measure of dualistic thinking in Plato to account for the reality of disorder in pre-cosmic times and for its potentiality ever since. As Mansfeld has clearly shown, this dualism should not be styled 'Gnostic' as Plato, unlike the Gnostics, considers the Demiurge to be good.In Middle Platonist philosophy, this view on the antagonistic nature of the cosmic elements and principles—however limited this antagonism actually was—was taken seriously by, among others, Plutarch and Numenius. In fact, this view was so inseparably bound up with the notions of cosmic elements and matter that it also accounts for the negative evaluation of the elements of the cosmos by Paul (see chap. 2.1 above on Gal 4.3 and 4.9) and the author of Col, and explains why they considered Christ's intervention necessary.
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Template: "Cite book" v. "Citation"
Template:Cite book | Template:Citation |
---|---|
cite book |ref=harv |last1=Boyd |first1=Gregory A. |authorlink1=Greg Boyd (theologian) |last2=Eddy |first2=Paul R. |year=2007 |title=Lord Or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=9780801065057 | Citation | last1 =Boyd | first1 =Gregory A. | authorlink1 =Greg Boyd (theologian) | last2 =Eddy | first2 =Paul R. | year =2007 | title =Lord Or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma | publisher =Baker Books | isbn =9780801065057 |
Boyd, Gregory A.; Eddy, Paul R. (2007). Lord Or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma. Baker Books. ISBN 9780801065057. | Boyd, Gregory A.; Eddy, Paul R. (2007), Lord Or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma, Baker Books, ISBN 9780801065057 |
Per Template:Citation § Anchored citations :
The special parameter |ref=harv generates an anchor; this is the default for the {{citation}} template. To disable anchor generation, specify |ref=none (in contrast, other Cite templates such as {{cite book}} and {{cite news}} do not create an anchor by default).
The Citation template uses commas in places where the Cite book use periods (full stops) by default; either type of template can use periods (full stops) or commas by using an optional parameter. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Demythologization
I keep coming back to this point of early Christian understandings of Jesus' death and resurrection, but now from the other side of the historical continuum: it seems to me that the 'mainstream historical understanding' of Jesus, as a real person to whom myths were attached, is somehow also 'agenda-drive'. This demythologization is in line with Enlightenment-thought, and gave way to a liberal attitude in which the person of Jesus was an exemplary person regarding morals and ethical behaviour. Yet, ironically, the mythicist understanding of Jesus seems to be closer to early Christianity, namely that Jesus was the incarnation of God on earth. That is, myth is central to the understanding of Christianity, not an earthly person called Jesus.
My point, then, is: shouldn't we someone make stronger mention that this earthly life is of central importance in liberal theology, and that this is a quite recent development? It somehow explains why this earthly life is so important for many people; without it, the ground under liberal theology drops away, and "only" the myths remain... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The article now has, for the first time as far as I know, a clear and accurate definition of the CMT- "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence". Thank you User:Joshua Jonathan for listening to me and Magic1million and putting that definition in the first sentence of the lead and I also appreciate 74.138.111.159, who does not really like that definition, for accepting it. So this is a question not about religion or theology but history.
- myth is central to the understanding of Christianity, not an earthly person called Jesus - I don't see why this article needs to bring anyone closer to an understanding of Christianity. It is not about religion."Myth" is used by "Christ mythers" in an inaccurate way, this is true, and causes confusion but the term "Christ myth theory" simply means "the idea that there was no such thing as Jesus".
- it seems to me that the 'mainstream historical understanding' of Jesus, as a real person to whom myths were attached, is somehow also 'agenda-drive'. This demythologization is in line with Enlightenment-thought, and gave way to a liberal attitude in which the person of Jesus was an exemplary person regarding morals and ethical behaviour - well of course Enlightenment scholars were not going to accept the supernatural or miraculous but I don't think it follows that modern historians want to follow an agenda presenting Jesus as "an exemplary person regarding morals and ethical behaviour". They simply say, as many are quoted in the article, that there is "very abundant" evidence that there was such a person without expressing a view of his ethics.
- Smeat75 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- User:Joshua Jonathan, The modern "liberal attitude" (John Dominic Crossan) is noted by Carrier at time 16 minutes 50 seconds per the following YouTube video: "The Gospel According to Carrier Part II §. Why are scholars reluctant to consider the non existence of Jesus hypothesis?" @ https://youtu.be/UmboG2xm5tY?t=16m50s
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
"[Per Rudolf Bultmann] his February 1924 lecture on the “latest theological movement”—represented, he says, by Barth, Gogarten, and Thurneysen—when he explicitly contrasts this new movement with Herrmann and Troeltsch as the representatives of liberal theology. Bultlnann then states the thesis of his lecture: “The object [Gegenstand] of theology is God, and the charge against liberal theology is that it has dealt not with God but with human beings.” We see in this piece the maturation of the claim stated in his Eisenach lecture of 1920, namely, that liberal theology fails to reflect on the specific content of Christian faith. In that earlier writing he contrasts the spiritual content of genuine religion with the liberal emphasis on a particular moralistic form." —Congdon, David W. (2015). The Mission of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann's Dialectical Theology. Fortress Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-4514-8792-3. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Bultmann and form criticism are old scholarship and have been thoroughly refuted by multiple modern scholars beginning with Sanders back in the 1970's. Liberalism as a critical movement has also pretty much died out, but I don't think that is how Carrier is using the term. I think he is using it more in its modern sense of conservative vs. liberal worldviews. The validity of the question--why are scholars unwilling to engage--stands on its own merit. It needs neither Bultmann nor liberalism to validate it as a serious question worth addressing. It would make a nice sub-page, however, in my opinion, it is not central to the topic of this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Bauckham review
[Regarding this addition],
though according to scholar in theology Richard Bauckham they may have received their information directly from eyewitnesses.[1] A review of Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony states "The common wisdom in the academy is that stories and sayings of Jesus circulated for decades, undergoing countless retellings and embellishments before being finally set down in writing."[2]
References
- ^ Bauckham 2017.
- ^ Hahn, Scott W.; Scott, David, eds. (1 September 2007). Letter & Spirit, Volume 3: The Hermeneutic of Continuity: Christ, Kingdom, and Creation. Emmaus Road Publishing. p. 225. ISBN 978-1-931018-46-3.
I feel using this quote out of context misrepresents the views of the article's author. The reviewer goes on to say in the very next line: "Everything about those assumptions is called into question in this important and provocative book." This reviewer does not disagree with Bauckham as this quote implies. The quote as it stands seems misleading to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Citation quoted Bauckham's viewpoint from the review and did a rough copyedit. Bauckham appears to hold a minority viewpoint? - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly how to answer your query--I would not call him a minority view because I define 'minority view' as evaluated and largely rejected--I guess I would call him the contemporary view. With the general demise of form criticism his book is creating a paradigm shift--like Ed Sanders and Birger Gerhardsson and a couple notable others have done in the last 30 years or so--so I don't know that he qualifies as a minority view exactly. His book has been out a while now and no one has effectively refuted it--yet. It seems to be establishing itself as the new standard in the field. I think that may make him more "the point of the spear" than minority. Biblical studies is not a field that makes changes swiftly if you know what I mean. But every now and then there are seismic shifts--Bauckham is one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Theology and angels in the mainstream historical view section
The mainstream historical view section until yesterday included this -
Yet, Ehrman also argues that Paul regarded Jesus to be an angel, who was incarnated on earth, aligning with a developing insight that shortly after the supposed death of a historical Jesus a "High Christology" or "incarnation Christology" existed, which was also preached by Paul, and even predates him. This "High Christology" is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father’s will on earth, and then wax (sic) taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come.
I tweaked it a little yesterday but thinking about it again I don't think this belongs in that section at all. It is not about history but theology and using technical theological terms " High Christology", for instance,nothing to do with history. Angels are not historical either, whether in heaven or on earth. This material does not belong in that section, I am removing it, whoever put it in can perhaps find a more suitable section for it elsewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- You also removed a reference and a note. Nevertheless, I understand why you removed it, though it is is noteworthy that Ehrman took over this idea that Paul regarded Jesus to be an angel. For Ehrman himself, the question why this 'historical person' came to be regarded as a god, in a very short time, is relevant enough to dedicate a whole book to it. The topic does not end with the notion that there was a historical Jesus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Joshua Jonathan for moving that material out of the "mainstream historical view" section.Smeat75 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- NB: The following caveat applies to the topic of angels per Carrier (2014):
and per Gieschen (1998):I must first define some terms I will frequently use. . . . These definitions are not intended to be normative. So there is no sense in arguing whether my definitions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. They merely specify what I mean when I use those terms, regardless of what anyone else might mean, or what any dictionaries say, or any other conventions. As long as you treat my definitions as nothing more than explanations of what I mean, confusion will be forestalled. I shall use god to mean any celestial being with supernatural power, and God to mean a supreme creator deity. Though by this definition angels and demons are indeed gods, I’ll sometimes (but not always) use angel or archangel to refer to ‘gods’ that are believed to be acting as messengers or servants of God . . . —(On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 60)
74.138.111.159 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Although Paul does not overtly label Christ as “the Angel of the Lord” in any of his letters, Paul does identify Christ as “the Power”, “Wisdom”, “the Heavenly Man”, and especially as “the Glory”, all of which have angelomorphic roots closely linked with the Angel of the Lord; see Quispel, “Ezekiel 1.28 in Jewish Mysticism”, 7-13. Segal, Paul the Convert, 35-71. and Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology, 241-247. —(Angelomorphic Christology, p. 316, n. 6)
- NB: The following caveat applies to the topic of angels per Carrier (2014):
it is is noteworthy that Ehrman took over this idea that Paul regarded Jesus to be an angel. [...] The topic does not end with the notion that there was a historical Jesus.
— User:Joshua Jonathan
Jesus mythicism is:
- The construction of a theory which will explain the origin of Christianity.
- A statement of the reasons for believing that Jesus cannot have been an historical person.
— User:74.138.111.159
Per Carrier (25 April 2018). "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus". Richard Carrier Blogs.:
The question of the historicity of Jesus isn’t really just about the trivia of whether Jesus existed or not. It’s actually a far more fundamental question about how Christianity as a world religion began.
74.138.111.159 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
More notable proponents
- René Salm (2008) The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus: attempts to show that archaeologically the town of Nazareth came into existence after the time that Jesus should have been living there. In his book, he makes 3 key assertions in his case against the existence of Nazareth during Jesus' time: A. The material finds reveal the following: (1) the lack of demonstrable material evidence from ca. 700 BCE to ca. 100 CE; (2) the 25 CE + dating of the earliest oil lamps at Nazareth; (3) the 50 CE + dating of all the post-Iron Age tombs at Nazareth, which are of the kokh type. Salm's claim that Nazareth did not exist has been criticized on the grounds that some elements dating to an appropriate era have been found, that Salm claims with too much certainty that certain items are from the doubtful edges of their latest possible dates (ignoring the plausible earlier dates), and that he makes the mistake of looking for artifacts relating to Nazareth in pious mis-locations by later pilgrims rather than places where Nazareth could have been. (Casey, 170)
- Raphael Lataster religious studies scholar and author of books and articles questioning the historicity of Jesus, There Was No Jesus, There Is No God (2013), and Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists (2015), with Richard Carrier. Lataster's December 2014 Washington Post article, Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn't add up, drew replies from Christian authors John Dickson and Michael Bird. Lataster presented a program on the opening day of the 2015 Australian Historical Association Conference, "The Gospel According to Bart: The Folly of Ehrman's Hypothetical Sources."
74.138.111.159 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Funny, I just read Price stating that Wells and Doherty are the most notable mythicists; I'd also add Price himself. Making that distinction made it more clear to me what really matters about the Cmt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yet Carrier does have a uniquely cogent style, e.g. Carrier (9 November 2017). "How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus? - Richard Carrier". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Comment by: Richard Carrier November 14, 2017
[now bolded]:
- Yet Carrier does have a uniquely cogent style, e.g. Carrier (9 November 2017). "How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus? - Richard Carrier". Richard Carrier Blogs.
- FACT. Many counter-cultural Jewish sects were seeking hidden messages in scripture.
- FACT. Cephas (Peter), a member or leader of one of those sects, had “visions” telling him one of those messages was now fulfilled.
- FACT. That fellow influenced or inspired others to have or claim supporting visions.
- FACT. They all died.
- FACT. Then some later folks did what was done for all savior gods: they made up stories about their savior god to promote what was by then a lifetime of the accumulated teachings, dogmas, and beliefs of various movement leaders.
- FACT. They all died.
- FACT. Then some later folks started promoting those myths as historically true.
- FACT. Those who protested that, were denounced as heretics and agents of Satan.
- FACT. They all died.
- FACT. Those who liked the new invented version of history won total political power and used it to destroy all the literature of those who had ever protested it.
All ten points are indisputable facts. Not theory. Facts. Documented. Undeniable. Facts.
[...]
Note that at no point is the historicity of Jesus even denied in these ten facts, individually or in conjunction. Because all ten can simply be a description of the invention of the historicity of the resurrection alone, not the man.And yet these same ten facts fully explain the historicization of either the resurrection or the man. If the one could happen (and it did), so could the other. And we can assert that without positing a single other fact about anything.
74.138.111.159 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- René Salm edits this page an is NOT a reliable source (see the history of this article). As far as those 10 "facts" are concerned, they are BS. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point of adding that long quote from Carrier's blog to this talk page. This is not a debating forum.Smeat75 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Per Hege, Brent, "Rudolf Bultmann on Myth, History, and the Resurrection" Myth, History, and the Resurrection in German Protestant Theology / (2017): 41-71
The cross is a historical event that is at the same time presented as a mythical event, alongside the mythical event of the resurrection that is also presented as a historical event. This intertwining of the historical and mythical creates particular difficulties for the interpreter who wishes to distinguish the historical from the mythical. The question is whether these narratives intend to express something that happened to the historical Jesus or whether their true intention is to express something else. —(p. 62)
- Per Hege, Brent, "Rudolf Bultmann on Myth, History, and the Resurrection" Myth, History, and the Resurrection in German Protestant Theology / (2017): 41-71
- If the resurrection—a "mythical event"—can be elaborately historicized in the Gospels, then this is a proof of concept that a "mythical person" can be elaborately historicized in the Gospels and thus should be noted in the article as a "plausibility" argument held by mythicists. – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Information about pseudoscience
Original thread
Copied from User talk:Talizman120#Christ myth theory
Sorry, I have reverted your very first edit to Wikipedia. This seemed like an argumentative paragraph and largely redundant in spirit with the paragraph that preceded it. I can see that some of these same statements appear much further down in the article, but you were stating new conclusions rather than summarizing what appeared down below. I think this point has been worked over pretty thoroughly on the talk page, but you are welcome to strike up a new discussion there if you think there is something more that has to be said. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Please also note that you should "sign" contributions to the talk page, by typing ~~~~ (four twiddles) at the end of the post. Then we can see who said what - thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
End of copied part. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
At the beginning, we should point out that this theory is considered pseudoscientific.
Most scholars consider this theory to be pseudo-scientific stupidity, comparable to creationism - "These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology" - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html
That's why we should restore my edition:
Nearly all researchers recognize that Jesus existed[1][2], and the theory of Jesus' myth is treated like pseudoscience[3], comparable to creationism[4], mythicism hypotheses are treated as worthless, unscientific, which no researcher takes seriously[5] Proponents of this theory are accused of a lack of academic education[6], ignorance of how modern critical scholarship actually works[7]
References
- ^ Van Voorst (2003), p. 660.
- ^ Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
- ^ Casey, Maurice, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching (T&T Clark, 2010), pp. 33, 104, 499.
- ^ D. Ehrman, Bart (2012). "Did Jesus Exist?". Huffpost.
These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=
(help) - ^ Jenkins, Phillip. "The Myth of the Mythical Jesus". patheos.com. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
- ^ Maurice Casey (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. A&C Black. pp. 10, 24. ISBN 978-0-567-59224-8.
I introduce here the most influential mythicists who claim to be ‘scholars’, though I would question their competence and qualifications. [...] [Thomas L. Thompson] was Professor of Theology at the University of Copenhagen from 1993–2009. His early work, which is thought to have successfully refuted the attempts of Albright and others to defend the historicity of the most ancient parts of biblical literature history, is said to have negatively affected his future job prospects
- ^ Casey, Maurice (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishers. pp. 1–41. ISBN 978-0567294586.
Creationism is described as pseudo-science at the outset, whose proponents ignore the methodology of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talizman120 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- The article already says, in the lead:
The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[5][6][7][q 2] It deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the accounts of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea.[8][9]
- That suffices. What you added is indeed argumentative, and WP:SYNTHESIS. Especially this line,
mythicism hypotheses are treated as worthless, unscientific, which no researcher takes seriously. (Source: Philip Jenkins, The Myth of the Mythical Jesus, patheos.com)
- Jenkins is probably a solid author, but what you're doing here is WP:CHERRYPICKING. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Some interesting blogs by Jenkins:
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Per Gullotta (2017) doi:10.1163/17455197-01502009 [now reformatted]:
[N]ot all mythicists are amateurs; some are professionally trained historians who hold degrees in relevant fields, such as biblical studies, ancient history, and classics. Even Ehrman concedes that there are
‘a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless ... Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice’. [cited: Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, p. 3]
These more noteworthy individuals include the late G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Brodie, Raphael Lataster, and Richard C. Carrier.
74.138.111.159 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
But he does not support the theory rejected by almost all researchers. Not only does he think so, Bart D. Ehrman is an agnostic and is not a friend of Christianity. Kent Hovind (creationist) and Terry Mortenson (creationistas) also have titles, does that make creationism scientific?
This view is completely rejected and is considered pseudoscientific. Researchers do not even want to argue with mythists. That is why it is necessary to put this information in the beginning, as it is said at the outset in creationism that it is a pseudo-theory. It must be said that this is a "minority" view, but the view rejected as unscientific.I propose such an introduction:
The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. Almost all researchers reject this view and compare it to creationism, pointing to his pseudoscience.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talizman120 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fitzgerald, David (2017). "Myths of Mythicism – Bias Cut". Jesus: Mything in Action. Vol. 1. CreateSpace. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-5428-5888-5.
[T]he majority of biblical historians in academia are employed by religiously affiliated institutions. This fact alone explains much of the resistance to Jesus Myth theory even among scholars who personally identify as secular. Furthermore, of those schools, we can quantify that at least 41% (if not 100%) require their instructors and staff to publicly reject Jesus Myth or they will not have a career at that institute of higher learning. So the question shouldn't be: "How many historians reject mythicism?" but "How many historians are contractually obliged to publicly reject mythicism?" Despite much lip service given to academic freedom, the sad truth is that for religious institutions (and by extension, the majority of all biblical history positions), academics have only as much freedom as can fit comfortably within the school's theological constraints. Any scholar whose findings threaten to step over that line — no matter how innocent or innocuous the doctrine in question may seem — is in danger.
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, a number of the authorities quoted in the article who reject the Christ myth are not "Biblical historians" but classical historians,such as Michael Grant, Alana Nobbs, Graeme Clarke and Phillip Jenkins.Smeat75 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but can you help me out here: of these four, Jenkins at least is a (professed) Believer, so he Knows the myth theory is wrong even before he looks at it. How many of the other three is this true for? (You see, so many of these arguments seem to end up at Bart Ehrmann...) Imaginatorium (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- They are historians, classical historians. Their job is to examine evidence. Their beliefs,if any, are utterly irrelevant.Smeat75 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, but can you help me out here: of these four, Jenkins at least is a (professed) Believer, so he Knows the myth theory is wrong even before he looks at it. How many of the other three is this true for? (You see, so many of these arguments seem to end up at Bart Ehrmann...) Imaginatorium (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, a number of the authorities quoted in the article who reject the Christ myth are not "Biblical historians" but classical historians,such as Michael Grant, Alana Nobbs, Graeme Clarke and Phillip Jenkins.Smeat75 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Apart from evangelical/fundamentalist works and other than Case (1928) [first pub. 1912], Carrier (2014) there are no peer-reviewed works specifically on the question of the "Historicity of Jesus", therefore the additional authors per WP RS—specifically on the question of the "Historicity of Jesus"—are Ehrman (2012), Casey (2014). So in that context Jenkins is deprecated. – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS:" Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both". Philip Jenkins is "the Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University in the United States, and Co-Director for Baylor's Program on Historical Studies of Religion in the Institute for Studies of Religion. He is also the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Pennsylvania State University (PSU). He was Professor (from 1993) and a Distinguished Professor (from 1997) of History and Religious studies at the same institution". Therefore the use of his statement in this article is not "deprecated".Smeat75 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Per Arnal (2015): "the main difference between “conservative” and “liberal” scholarship revolves around how much legendary accretion is stripped away in order to arrive at the “historical core,” not whether there is any historical core to be found at all."Are the relevant works of Jenkins specifically on "the question of the Historicity of Jesus" i.e. does he question "whether there is any historical core to be found at all."
- Cf. Ehrman (5 May 2012). "Did Jesus Exist as Part One". The Bart Ehrman Blog.:
74.138.111.159 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC) && 05:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise.
Sources needed
Talizman, you need sources for the following statements:
- "Almost all researchers reject this view" (that is, have stated that they reject it)
- "[Almost all researchers] compare it to creationism"
- "This view [...] is considered pseudoscientific"; "it is a pseudo-theory"; "the view [is] rejected as unscientific"; "[Almost all researchers] point[...] to his [sic] pseudoscience."
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Almost all researchers reject this view" (that is, have stated that they reject it) -
- 1 These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them... -Bart. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?". Huffington Post.
- 2 What you can’t do, though, without venturing into the far swamps of extreme crankery, is to argue that Jesus never existed. The “Christ-Myth Hypothesis” is not scholarship, and is not taken seriously in respectable academic debate. The grounds advanced for the “hypothesis” are worthless. The authors proposing such opinions might be competent, decent, honest individuals, but the views they present are demonstrably wrong....Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity - Jenkins, Phillip. "The Myth of the Mythical Jesus". patheos.com. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
- [Almost all researchers] compare it to creationism" - Some compare this view to creationism
- 1 These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.- Bart. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?". Huffington Post.
- "This view [...] is considered pseudoscientific"; "it is a pseudo-theory"; "the view [is] rejected as unscientific"; "[Almost all researchers] point[...] to his [sic] pseudoscience."
- 1 What you can’t do, though, without venturing into the far swamps of extreme crankery, is to argue that Jesus never existed. The “Christ-Myth Hypothesis” is not scholarship, and is not taken seriously in respectable academic debate. The grounds advanced for the “hypothesis” are worthless. The authors proposing such opinions might be competent, decent, honest individuals, but the views they present are demonstrably wrong....Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity - Jenkins, Phillip. "The Myth of the Mythical Jesus". patheos.com. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talizman120 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- These quotes are already used in the article and it is right that they are. We do not need to summarize them in our own words with "Almost all researchers reject this view" or "[Almost all researchers] compare it to creationism". Under "Scholarly reception" the article also states "In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars" - a strong, and correct, statement. If you have new and different quotes from scholars (preferably historians, to try to avoid the accusations of bias that biblical scholars and theologians(unfairly) are met with here), please add them.Smeat75 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. Un addition, the Ehrman-quote on creationism is interpreted (editorialized?), and is the statement of one author; same for Jenkins on "not scholrship." See also WP:TRUTH and WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Solid author
[But] contrary to your claim above ("solid author"), Jenkins is employed by Baylor University, described as a "private Baptist university". His family's wellbeing ("college", "health insurance", sort of thing) depends on him asserting (professing, Believing, whatever) the opposite of the mythicist theory. So he is hopelessly partisan, and his opinion [clarify: "on this specific question"] is worthless. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- That is ridiculous and offensive. Jenkins is a distinguished professor of history and religious studies. The university that employs him does not require him to issue statements such as "Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity" which in fact is more or less what every classical historian who bothers to express a view of the Christ myth says. Attacking a living scholarly authority as partisan and worthless on WP, even on a talk page, could be considered a violation of WP's biography of living people policy.Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, the university may not require him to issue that particular statement, but his livelihood depends on not saying something like "There is considerable doubt whether the historical Jesus actually existed". Therefore he is partisan (can you seriously disagree with this?) and his opinion is not of any value relating to the question his employment does not allow him to contemplate addressing. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly do seriously disagree that he is partisan and even on a talk page if you are going to make accusations like that about a living scholar they should be referenced to a reliable source, not just your opinion that "He is employed by a Baptist university therefore his scholarly assessment is worthless." A historian's job is to examine evidence and he finds, as classical historians Michael Grant, Alana Nobbs and Graeme Clarke also quoted in the article more or less say that "Jesus is better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity."Smeat75 (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I realise my statement above could (just) be misinterpreted, so I have edited it to make clear that I mean that his opinion on this specific question is worthless, because of his philosophical and economic lock-in. Of course he may be an excellent "bible scholar", and I started reading his blog on origins of Christianity, which was quite interesting. I am also still having some difficulty understanding the claim above: "...better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity", to work out who (I might have heard of who) would be worse documented. That's a serious question, btw, and I will try to write some more general comments on the article at some stage. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"...better documented and recorded than [...]"
I am also still having some difficulty understanding the claim above: "...better documented and recorded than pretty much any non-elite figure of antiquity", to work out who (I might have heard of who) would be worse documented. That's a serious question, btw, and I will try to write some more general comments on the article at some stage. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Taking a sentence more or less at random from the opening of Tacitus' "Annals",the same work which contains the confirmation of the execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate, Tacitus refers to the "excesses" of a member of the family, or maybe a friend of Emperor Augustus (alive at the time of Jesus) named Quintus Tedius and as an annotated edition of the Annals says about him "we know nothing".[3] One mention of this person,a high ranking elite member or associate of the imperial family, and the only thing we know about him is this one mention in Tacitus from 80 years or so after the time he is talking about. No historian however looks at that passage and thinks "I don't believe that person ever existed." There are literally thousands of such examples, not just in Tacitus but all other surviving works of ancient history, of figures known only from one passage written many years after their death,it is not at all unusual. What is unusual about Jesus is not how little evidence we have of his existence, but how much (as Jenkins and the other classical historians quoted in the article say).Smeat75 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Per, Ehrman (2012), p. 97, §. Non-Christian Sources. "[Per the writings of Josephus and Tacitus] Their informants were [...] [1. Christians or 2. non-Christians who themselves had heard stories about Jesus from Christian informants]. It is impossible to know [with certainty] whether these Christians [informants] had been influenced by the sources we have already discussed, but it is [also] completely possible that they themselves had simply heard stories about Jesus [i.e. they were merely passing on hearsay]. [...] [Therefore Tacitus—and possibly Josephus—indirectly] provide independent attestation to Jesus’s existence from outside the Gospels..."
- Cf. Wells, George A. (24 May 2012). "Ehrman on the Historicity of Jesus and Early Christian Thinking". Free Inquiry. Vol. 32, no. 4.
[Per Tacitus and Josephus] Ehrman seems a little reluctant to surrender these two witnesses altogether, for he reverts to them (97), saying that 'Tacitus and (possibly) Josephus... indirectly provide independent attestation to Jesus's existence from outside the gospels,' for they 'heard information' about him from informants who 'themselves had heard stories about him' from Christians who may in turn 'have simply heard stories about him.' Of course there were umpteen stories about him current by the late first and early second centuries; but what they attest to is not Jesus's existence but rather to belief in his existence.
- NB: The weasel word "indirectly" per "Tacitus and (possibly) Josephus... indirectly provide independent attestation to Jesus's existence from outside the gospels," – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- We do not know where ancient historians got their information, for the most part. They almost never discuss their sources. As the article Tacitus on Christ says, in his book " Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium" Ehrman writes "Tacitus's report confirms (no "weaselly" 'indirectly' this time) what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." The same article also points out that "Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body."Smeat75 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not "weaselly" in this context, just slippery as an eel: "confirm" is not the same as "attest—be evidence of". - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Per Casey (2014), Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, T&T Clark, ISBN 9780567015051 {{citation}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(help):
Almost all our surviving primary sources about Jesus are Christian because most people who had any interest in writing about him were his followers, and the few relatively early comments by other writers such as Josephus and Tacitus are largely due to special circumstances, such as Jesus’ brother Jacob (Jos. Ant. XX,200), or the great fire of Rome” (Tac. Annals XI, 44).
- Casey does not make any clear assertion from Tacitus.
- Ehrman′s assertion from Tacitus, is that it provides attestation of Jesus's existence (from outside the Gospels)—with the caveat that it is not a "direct attestation"—while also conceding that the Christian informants may have "simply heard stories about Jesus" i.e. they were merely passing on hearsay.
Inexplicably it appears that neither Casey nor Ehrman note that Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis? – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- "Christian informants may have "simply heard stories about Jesus" i.e. they were merely passing on hearsay." Well,maybe, maybe not. That is sheer speculation. As a senator,Tacitus had access to the official state archives,which we know he consulted on various occasions, maybe he did in this case also, who knows? I have quoted this passage from the Annals "The domestic life too of Augustus was not spared.... There were the excesses of Quintus Tedius." Who was that? what were these "excesses" (and note that Augustus died 14 AD, and the Annals were written about 100 years later). We don't know, this is the only mention of this person that exists anywhere. But no historian looks at that and says or thinks "Hmmm, this Tedius is not mentioned anywhere else, that is not good enough evidence that there ever was such a person and where did Tacitus get that information anyway, maybe Tedius and his excesses were just hearsay." However I shouldn't really be responding to these points here and I will not continue, this talk page is not a forum.Smeat75 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Interpolations
@Smeat75: could you please post replies at the bottom of the thread, instead of interpolating your answers? This thread has become to complicated qua structure. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)}}
Grant
[And] perhaps Michael Grant (classicist) (1914–2004) may be just a little outdated?
- Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner. ISBN 978-0-684-14889-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
Reprinted 2004 sans subtitle as,
- Grant, Michael (2004) [1977]. Jesus. Orion. ISBN 978-1-898799-88-7.
Reprint of Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (1977)
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
74.138.111.159 (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, it isn't outdated for an article which includes discussion of the first scholar " to systematically argue that Jesus did not exist", Bruno Bauer (1809-1882).Smeat75 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
"Traditional and modern Christian views" and "Other religious views on Jesus"
I agree with editor Magic1million above that these two sections, recently added I believe to try to meet the concerns of editor Jenhawk, which didn't work, and that editor seems to have decided to direct their attentions elsewhere, at least for the moment, do not add value to the article. Just stating elements of faith is not directly relevant to the CMT. The section "Other religious views on Jesus" is currently entirely unreferenced. I think it is a mistake to have these sections at the beginning of the main body of the article as it gives the impression that opposition to the Christ myth theory is on a basis of faith and religious belief when really it is a matter of secular history more than anything else imo. Discussion of miracles does not belong in this article, that has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed as a person or not. Can we agree to remove those two sections?Smeat75 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Totally fine with removing "Other religious views on Jesus"; would like to keep the "Traditional and modern Christian views" section. We refer to it in the introductory subsection, and religious views are part of the debate as well; see Casey's and Ehrman's comments about the anti-Christian c.q. anti-fundamentalist nature of the works of some mythicists. And there are, of course, significant relations between critical scholarship and liberal theology/Christianity. As Casey also notes, mythicists operate in a field where there are also moderate, liberal Christians, not only fundamentalists. But this is not a 'hard issue' for me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing "Other religious views on Jesus". I am going to move "Traditional and modern Christian views" to after "Mainstream historical view". I would prefer to remove it but will see if we can get consensus for that first. I feel "Mainstream historical view" should come first as this is actually much more a matter of history than of faith.Smeat75 (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed the "Other religious views" section
- I am sorry to have taken so long to get back to this. Life interferes with my online presence at times. And sometimes I just need a break. I think there has been some misunderstanding here. I did not support the addition of those two "religious" sections and if it was done to appease me, then consider me grateful for the effort, but not in support of the actual effect. Smeat and I agreed on his talkpage that it was not what I wanted--for the reasons he states which are good ones. "Mainline historical views" is entirely adequate in my opinion since this is supposed to be an historical question. That section needs expanding to include all the relevant views on the points mentioned in the overview of mythicism, but beyond that, adding religious views does not add to the quality of the article in my opinion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- You know, the more I look at that section, the more I dislike it. There shouldn't be a separation between "traditional Christian" and "scholarly"--that presents a bias in itself--in New Testament studies, traditional views are an aspect of mainline scholarly views. This section offers no new or particularly relevant information, it is not connected as contrast to anything anywhere in the article, it's not historical, it just doesn't belong. Neutrality won't be created by setting off an arbitrary section by itself. It will be created by including contrasting views where they belong. Where there are ten lines explaining the mythicist view, there should be one mentioning the contrasting view. Readers shouldn't have to go searching for that information. It should be right next to what it's referencing. It should be focused, specific, and only include what is absolutely relevant to mythicism. But imho it should be there.
- I don't think continually restating "this is fringe" or "scholars ignore it" or anything like that is gonna create neutrality either. I am with Ehrman on this one, personally I think mythicism should get more scholarly attention than it does--but I know, I know, my personal opinion is beside the point. What I mean by saying that is that I don't think being dismissive is going to create the quality of article I think everyone wants here.
- And in my opinion, for accuracy's sake, that section should be titled Mainline Historical views or simply Alternate historical views. Titling it as 'Scholarly' creates a bias toward the mythicist writers as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Smeat75: You say "I would prefer to remove it but will see if we can get consensus for that first." You have my wholehearted support to remove it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- User:Joshua Jonathan said he would prefer to keep it and I do not have strong feelings about it so I would prefer to get his agreement before removing the section.Smeat75 (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Makes sense. We'll wait and see what he says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's a bias in a separation between "traditional Christian" and "scholarly"
views, on the contrary. A couple of centuries ago, critical scholarship on Christinaity as it exists now would hacve been impossible, due to traditional Christian views. More bluntly: their lives would have been in danger... Or more contemporary: a scholar like Ehrrman is not really aprreciated by Evangelicals, is he?
Bu alas, apart from that: imagine a Hindu reader who comes to this article; what do they know about Christianity, apart from it being the religion of the colonial suppressors? They'll need to know for them that there are multiple views on Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
NB: I think that "traditional views" should precede "scholarly views." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Van Voorst (2000), Nonexistence Hypothesis, p.658:
The argument that Jesus never existed, but was invented by the Christyian movement around the year 100, goes back to Enlightenment times, when the historical-critical study of the past was born. Although maintream New Testament scholarship has not paid attention to this argument in recent decades, debate on the existence has been on the fringes of scholarship and popular relgious discussion for more than two centuries.
That's a rich quote. It connects the Cmt with critical scholarship, implying that critical scholarship departs from traditional views; but it also clearly states that the Cmt is fringe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanx for talking it through Jonathon. The first thing that comes to my mind is that how things were two hundred years ago is not how they are today. That's why it's important on Wiki to focus primarily on modern scholarship. All modern scholarship studies the Bible in the same manner using the same variety of critical methods. Simple exegesis is still done for preaching and teaching but not for PhD's or for publication. There is no separation in scholarship styles and methods anymore just in conclusions.
- Yes it's true a scholar like Ehrman--whom I respect--is disliked by some evangelicals--just as the evangelicals and conservatives are sometimes disliked by the agnostics and liberals--and excluded from being referenced in articles like this simply because they are conservatives. They are marked and set aside in their own special box where they are identified not by their methods of scholarship but by their conclusions, and I guarantee any attempt to identify others as atheist or agnostic in this manner would be instantly reverted. And justly so. And that should justly apply in both directions.
- Let me say again that all modern biblical scholarship uses critical method but different people come to different conclusions; "traditional views" are not separated by their methods. N. T. Wright is the premier Pauline scholar in the world. He's at Oxford University. He's a conservative. His methods are as scrutinized as his product. Wiki says Martin Hengel was one of the greatest theological scholars of his time. He too was conservative using critical methods. Eddy and Boyd are scholars, have recently written a book on method, and are conservative in their conclusions. Bauckham's scholarship is impeccable and even those who dislike his conclusions support that view. This list could go on because these are the actual people that compose about half of the middle of modern scholarship. There should be no separation between "tradition" and "scholarly" in our modern day because that separation--which existed 200 years ago--no longer exists today.
- That's a good quote, but I don't agree it implies critical scholarship departs from traditional views. Mainline critical scholarship today includes all the views from agnostic/liberal to conservative. Gerry Schoberg is Senior Academic Administrator and Lecturer in New Testament at Regent College, Vancouver, holds a PhD in New Testament from the University of Bristol, and has recently written "Perspectives of Jesus in the Writings of Paul: A Historical Examination" (978-1-62032-008-2) that reflects exactly that -- it includes discussion of the distribution and arguments for and against all the various critical views of Paul on Jesus. Fundamentalists at both ends are excluded from that central group, and that includes Cmt usually, (which point has been sufficiently stated in this article imho). The idea here is not to dismiss but to inform--fully and fairly inform--and that is not accomplished in my thinking by creating an artificial separation of views here in this article that doesn't exist in the field. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correction. Tom Wright is currently at St.Mary's.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I seem to be having a little trouble following this conversation about whether or not to separate traditional views from scholarly ones as the article has a section "Mainstream historical view" followed by "Traditional and modern Christian views", it is distinguishing, it seems to me, not between "scholars" and "traditionalists" but between the views of historians and views based on religion. The reason why I do not like that section "Traditional and modern Christian views" and really do think if it is going to stay in the article it needs to come after, not before, "Mainstream historical view" is that I do not believe that this question has anything to do with religious views, it is a matter of history. All the time, for years, in these articles and talk pages on WP you see editors assuming that the only people who think Jesus existed are fundamentalist Christians and that is just not true.Smeat75 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"[I]t will prove helpful to break down the wide variety of views regarding the Jesus of history found in New Testament scholarship today into four broad (and admittedly overly simplistic) categories. [...] A fourth and final group of scholars argue that [the] positions [of categories] 1-3 are overly skeptical toward the Gospel material. [...][category 4] scholars maintain that historical research can indeed disclose a good deal of reliable information about the historical Jesus." —Eddy, Paul Rhodes; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus" Tradition. Baker Academic. pp. 24f. ISBN 978-0-8010-3114-4.
- Does "overly skeptical toward the Gospel material" imply conservative or liberal?
Per Arnal (2015), "the main difference between “conservative” and “liberal” scholarship revolves around how much legendary accretion is stripped away in order to arrive at the “historical core,”..."
- Who arrives at the minimal Jesus conclusion: conservative or liberal?
74.138.111.159 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Therein lies the rub, to quote Shakespeare--or Oxford--as the case may be. They both have their versions of the "minimal Jesus". It cannot be said that one is definitively provably more accurate than the other. The sources are simply too limited. This is not a question that is resolvable here--certainly not by us. All we can do is present the discussion points fairly.
- "Overly skeptical" is liberal, agnostic and atheist. Please see the quote below in the Vermes/resurrection section from "reluctant atheist" Will Durant in his "Caesar and Christ" where he references this, asserting that if the same standards applied to the NT were applied to others in history, hundreds would become "legendary". That would make history chaos. This "extreme skepticism" is also referenced by others about Bultmann and his school--by N.T.Wright, Eddy and Boyd and Bauckham and others--which is the main reason why Bultmann is considered outdated by so many nowadays and his assumptions/conclusions are seen as historical and no longer "mainline". The effort to apply skepticism to ourselves and our own assumptions--all of us--is part of this current discussion. Assuming personal neutrality and the bias of others is a kind of bias in itself.
- As user Smeat75 says: All the time, for years, in these articles and talk pages on WP you see editors assuming that the only people who think Jesus existed are fundamentalist Christians and that is just not true. Once again, it is my opinion user Smeat75 is 100% on target with this.
- Having these separate headings does, in my view, distinguish "between the views of historians and views based on religion" and that is an artificial separation of the scholarship on this subject; all historians have religious views, yay or nay, and religious people have done, and do, good critical historical work. That's because the majority of religious are not fundamentalist. Even if Smeat75 doesn't see things exactly as I do, their argument is sound. This article should stay focused on history as much as that is possible and avoid the quicksand of "traditional" religious views. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Smeat75: I can see how this would be confusing since I was originally responding to the suggested heading of 'Mainstream Scholarly Views' as separate from 'Traditional religious views'. I support 'Mainstream historical views' as the best heading and think all historical views that fall into that category should be included without reference to their religious leanings as conservatives or liberals. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Given the fringe status of these [Mythicist] theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles. In the rare instances where these theories have been addressed, they are predominantly countered by self-confessed (and typically evangelical) Christian apologists and scholars. (For examples, see [...] Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007); Gregory A. Body and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Lord or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007) [...])" —Gullotta (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2–3): 310–346. doi:10.1163/17455197-01502009.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Given the fringe status of these [Mythicist] theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles. In the rare instances where these theories have been addressed, they are predominantly countered by self-confessed (and typically evangelical) Christian apologists and scholars. (For examples, see [...] Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007); Gregory A. Body and Paul Rhodes Eddy, Lord or Legend?: Wrestling with the Jesus Dilemma (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007) [...])" —Gullotta (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 15 (2–3): 310–346. doi:10.1163/17455197-01502009.
- 74.138.111.159 now I am the one confused--are you calling me evangelical? Is that supposed to dismiss my arguments or me or what exactly? Are you saying you think there are no mainstream objections? That "traditional" and "evangelical" are the same? What? I am clearly not understanding what point you are trying to make here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- The quote of Daniel N. Gullotta (cited: http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/17455197-01502009) is given in support of,
as Gullotta does note scholars who are Christian apologists (typically evangelical). - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)I don't think there's a bias in a separation between "traditional Christian" and "scholarly" views
— User:Joshua Jonathan
- I would have to see some actual facts on that. I don't think it's correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ehrman notes fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals scholars per "Did Jesus Exist as Part One". The Bart Ehrman Blog. 5 May 2012.
[Comment by Bart Ehrman May 7, 2012] I never belonged to the Jesus seminar. My main point of disagreement is that I think the conclusion of the seminar, that Jesus was NOT an apocalyptic prophet, is precisely wrong. That is exactly what Jesus was, in my opinion. And in the opinion, I think, of the majority of scholars in the field for the past century (excepting fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals).
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ehrman notes fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals scholars per "Did Jesus Exist as Part One". The Bart Ehrman Blog. 5 May 2012.
Scholars contractually obligated to reject mythicism
David Fitzgerald notes that some scholars are contractually obligated to publicly reject mythicism.
- Fitzgerald, David (2017). "Myths of Mythicism – Bias Cut". Jesus: Mything in Action. Vol. 1. CreateSpace. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-5428-5888-5.
[T]he majority of biblical historians in academia are employed by religiously affiliated institutions. This fact alone explains much of the resistance to Jesus Myth theory even among scholars who personally identify as secular. Furthermore, of those schools, we can quantify that at least 41% (if not 100%) require their instructors and staff to publicly reject Jesus Myth or they will not have a career at that institute of higher learning. So the question shouldn't be: "How many historians reject mythicism?" but "How many historians are contractually obliged to publicly reject mythicism?" Despite much lip service given to academic freedom, the sad truth is that for religious institutions (and by extension, the majority of all biblical history positions), academics have only as much freedom as can fit comfortably within the school's theological constraints. Any scholar whose findings threaten to step over that line — no matter how innocent or innocuous the doctrine in question may seem — is in danger.
- Cf. David Chumney (27 May 2017). "A Review of David Fitzgerald's Jesus: Mything in Action". Debunking Christianity.
Fitzgerald stresses, many professors have a contractual obligation to affirm the historicity of Jesus (62).
74.138.111.159 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC) && 01:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- That there are evangelicals who have spent time responding to Cmt is irrefutable. That not many mainstream have bothered is also irrefutable. No argument. Can an evangelical be scholarly? That is the question I guess. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, probably. I don't really know for sure as I don't follow "evangelicals" as a group. I tend to think anyone doing research using critical historical methods qualifies as a scholar no matter what their views. I research both sides of any article I work on and try to be sure both views are included in the proportion I find them when doing that research. Since evangelicals are in fact the ones mostly responding to Cmt, that's what I found, but I have agreed to exclude them here as not mainstream. Not all respondents to the varied aspects of this theory are evangelicals. But that may be beside the point here. My point was that titling these sections in such a way that religious views and scholarship are separated evidences a conclusion to that question on what qualifies as scholarly. That also seems irrefutable to me.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Proto-Christian communities
The article says:
before Paul started preaching, a number of proto-Christian communities seem to have been in existence.
That recalls Mack, Who Wrote Te New Testament?, yet no reference has been given for this statement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Per Doherty, "Book Review: Burton L. Mack - Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth" @ http://jesuspuzzle.org/review1.htm
"[Per the preservation of separate elements of Jesus by separate communities] How did all these fragmented little groups, Q, the Jesus School, the Thomas people, the Congregation of Israel, exist in glorious isolation from each other, immune to crossover influences, and all of them blithely indifferent to the cultic movement which had turned Jesus into God and had chucked the whole teaching tradition and every aspect of a recent human ministry onto the scrap heap?
[...]
Mack’s final “Jesus movement” is the group known as the “pillars” in Jerusalem, but this will be left until after a discussion of his second general type of early Christian response to Jesus: the Christ cult, with Paul as its high priest.
[...]
the Christ cult already existed at the time of Paul’s conversion. [...] the myths of the Christ cult—prayers, hymns, etc.—include the famous passage in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 where Paul states the basic gospel he preaches about the Christ, then lists a series of ‘appearances’ of the risen Christ to people in Jerusalem, ending with himself." - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Alternative terms:
- Early Christianity
- Christ cult
- Jesus movement
- Jesus-confessing communities
- I would like to see some reputable source defining proto-Christian communities as pre-existing Paul. We know Peter et al pre-existed Paul, so there must be something out there, but this may be a confounding of terms. In his book "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" on pages 151 and 175 Ehrman discusses his views on the development of orthodox theology as beginning in "proto-orthodoxy". Ehrman is the originator of that phrase "proto-orthodox" which refers to those commonly known as the early “church fathers” and all the references I have, so far, found are post-Pauline. Much of Ehrman's discussion is about the gnostics which were second century.
- "James, Brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church: A Radical Exploration of Christian Origins" By Alan Saxby, isbn 978-1-4982-0390-6 describes proto-Christian communities as existing in the mid-first century to a half century later (pg.95). This one is the same: "The Gospel in Christian Traditions" By Ted A Campbell, isbn 978-0-19-537063-8, pg.25. So far, all the books I have looked at say the same. Proto-Christian and proto-orthodox are not interchangable terms as Ehrman uses it--but perhaps they are by others? Reference?
- If "The Jesus Puzzle" is going to be used as a reference, shouldn't a review of it be included? Or maybe some summation of reviews? Something? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, if you want to add a concise overview of how "The Jesus Puzzle" was received, go ahead. If there are problems with your addition, I am sure you will be notified.Smeat75 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oh joy. Is it possible to find any? This won't open: "Book Review: Burton L. Mack - Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth" @ http://jesuspuzzle.org/review1.htm Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently Earl Doherty "In 2009 ... self-published a revised edition of ("The Jesus Puzzle") with a new title of Jesus: Neither God nor Man and both Ehrman and Casey in their books on the Christ myth critique that version pretty savagely. I may try to add something from their books to the section.Smeat75 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I found exactly the same things, though I have had some difficulty finding a full edition of Casey--have you found one? I've started working on a paragraph in my sandbox--that I don't like much yet--but I am happy for you to do something instead. I respect your work. I found a couple reviews of Mack too. And while this is all good, it doesn't really address the original statement--"before Paul started preaching, a number of proto-Christian communities seem to have been in existence"--being without a verifiable reference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Smeat75: Perhaps you could tweak, maybe shorten, something like this: New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman quotes Doherty from The Jesus Puzzle as saying it was Paul's view that Jesus' death took place in the spiritual not the earthly realm, [1]: 258 , but Ehrman says, not only is there "no evidence to support Doherty's assertion of what Paul's view of Jesus was", but there are also "a host of reasons for calling Doherty's view into serious question."[1]: 254, 258 (This comment could reasonably end right here--or include what follows explaining a couple of those reasons.)
- These include Doherty's unfounded assertions about a single Hellenist worldview being present in the first century which was no more unified than worldviews in the 21st century are; Paul's worldview was not Hellenistic but was that of a practicing Second Temple Jew; mystery cults are never mentioned in a favorable light by Paul or any other Christian author for Christianity's first one hundred years, yet all make repeated reference to the Old Testament.[1]: 256 Paul leaves little doubt he believes Jesus' burial and resurrection to have been physical events on earth.[1]: 258 . Ehrman describes the majority of mythicist books, including Doherty's, as "sensationalist" [1]: 19, 21, 23, 26, 30 and "not serious historical writing." [1]: 26 He says "their agenda is religious... [and books like Doherty's are written] for ideological reasons rooted in non-historical agendas." [1]: 337, 338
- I didn't use Casey--I figured one response was enough and even that didn't need to be comprehensive, just representative. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I have added the Ehrman quote as you suggested (you really don't have to get my permission, you could have done so yourself!) and I agree with you that "This comment could reasonably end right here" - I think that's enough. Reading Casey I think that his strongest criticism of Doherty is that he tries to analyse the texts but he does not understand the languages they are written in so I have added that comment of Casey's from the Earl Doherty article. Ehrman and Casey are actually much ruder and dismissive of Doherty than these comments we are adding so I think it is neutral.Smeat75 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I love the change and the addition and agree you did make it neutral. I wasn't happy with mine and I am happy with "ours". They were rude! I was trying to figure out how to accurately represent them without including that and you did it. Thank you.
- I have had some really bad--really bad--experiences here on Wikipedia attempting to edit articles having to do with religion. It's my field of study. I have a degree in religion--from a secular university--and one in Philosophy and a Masters in New Testament and I don't really feel qualified to write on anything else. I'm retired now and have time to just write but this is all I know honestly--totally ignorant of all else! I have my head buried in books on one subject at all times--otherwise clueless. But there are many who are highly emotionally invested on this subject and they get--have gotten--downright abusive--and administrators don't care. No one does anything. The only answer offered is run away. Stop fighting with them. Let the bullies win. All that seems necessary is to accuse someone of being "religious" and all reason goes out the window. It gets very discouraging. So I am trying different approaches. At first I took Wikipedia's "be bold" at face value. It took me a while to figure out that doesn't really fly in the real Wiki world. Then I tried the idea of editing small pieces, but that didn't change the response. So now I am trying for consensus before acting. People get invested. I understand that. I don't want to step all over someone else's work, call their baby ugly, and then try to get agreement I'm right. That just has no way to ever go well. So I am really trying to be aware of everyone's "feelings" and going for consensus up front. I am very grateful for your cooperation, for your help, and especially for your reasonableness above all else. I know I don't have to do it this way, but as long as you are willing to work with me, I appreciate you letting me. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Jenhawk77, good to know you're retired. I had the impression you're a young guy, but age and life-experiences deserves due respect. Also thanks for your explanation above. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am young on the inside. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- So did anyone ever come up with a valid reference for this? A non-accessible review of Burton Mack doesn't qualify. "The article says:
" That is, I think, possibly, a misreading of Mack even if the reference is to him. I can find proto-orthodox--but not proto-Christian--has anyone else found a description of this and what it is supposed to be?Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)before Paul started preaching, a number of proto-Christian communities seem to have been in existence.
- So did anyone ever come up with a valid reference for this? A non-accessible review of Burton Mack doesn't qualify. "The article says:
- Call it differently; I'll look-up my copy. The point is, Mack describes a number of early Jesus movements, not a single point of origin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Per Wayback Machine:
- "Book Review: Burton L. Mack - Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth". Humanist in Canada. 120: 12–13. Spring 1997. Archived from the original on 17 August 2000.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
- "Book Review: Burton L. Mack - Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth". Humanist in Canada. 120: 12–13. Spring 1997. Archived from the original on 17 August 2000.
- Ehrman, Bart D. (2018). The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. Simon & Schuster. pp. 128, 309, n. 39. ISBN 978-1-5011-3672-6.
Christianity was an amazingly diverse phenomenon throughout the first four Christian centuries, with different Christians advocating an enormous range of beliefs and engaging in strikingly different practices. This has been the subject of a large number of books in modern times, especially over the past forty years.
- 74.138.111.159 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Per Wayback Machine:
- Joshua Jonathan, those are not different terms for the same thing. They have very different meanings. What Mack refers to as going before Paul are "Jesus cults" though there is no historical evidence of such a thing, if he is being quoted, he should be accurately quoted and referenced.
- 74.138.111.159, understanding Ehrman's quote correctly means knowing he is talking about an extended period of time --the "first four Christian centuries"--that is not specifically or necessarily about the first fifty years. There was no variety in the first fifty or so years--not until gnosticism appeared. According to Richard Carrier Paul was converted before AD 37. Comparing extra-biblical sources and Acts locates the beginning of Christianity reasonably well too, and pretty much everyone agrees Paul was converted within one to three years of Christianity's beginnings which most associate with the time of Jesus' death. That creates some problems, but regardless, if Mack is being quoted, it should be accurate and referenced accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Friesen uses the term "Proto-Christian": Friesen, Steven J. (2010). "Injustice of God's Will: Explanations of Poverty in Proto-Christian Communities". In Horsley, Richard (ed.). Christian Origins. Vol. A People’s History of Christianity, vol. 1. Fortress Press. pp. 240–260. ISBN 978-1-4514-1664-0.
Per "diversity in early Christianity" see Hurtado (8 October 2015). "Early Christian Diversity". Larry Hurtado's Blog.:
[E]arly Christian diversity, however, was not a number of totally separate communities or forms (hence, my dissatisfaction with “early Christianities”). As I contend in a recent article, the diverse expressions of early Christianity seem to have been in vibrant contact with one another, sometimes conflicting, at other times seeming to agree to overlook differences, at other times seeking to persuade others of their own views/emphases
74.138.111.159 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ha ha! I can't believe you're quoting Hurtado! Be careful! What he means by diversity is not how I understand you to be using that term. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but Hurtado also says: "Today there are at least as many and as major divisions among those whom modern historians classify as “Christians,” but we don’t have references to “modern Christianities." Hurtado says of the model that asserts different Christianities developed separately from each other that, "to state matters candidly, it simply does not reflect adequately the historical data. Part of the reason may perhaps be the apparent impetus for the model. Koester, for example, indicates with commendable candour in a retrospective essay in the 1991 Festschrift in his honour that his own views were heavily shaped in reaction against the traditional ecclesiastical model of a primary and unified orthodoxy."[4] Hurtado asserts the presence of that primary orthodoxy in all the earliest Christian communities, in all his books.
- So how does Friesen use the term and can he be referenced instead? I am not familiar with Friesen's work.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Friesen's banal usage is as per Wiktionary:proto —preceding the proper beginning of something. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Per Bock, Darrell L. (2006). "Introduction". The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities. Thomas Nelson. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-4185-7810-7. The new school claims that Irenaeus "won" and was the key architect of orthodoxy. The claim is that this orthodoxy (or the claim of a defined, legitimate Christianity) emerged even more clearly in the third and fourth centuries. So the new school argues that the Christianity we know has roots that do not really go back to the time of Jesus or even to the apostles in a way that precludes other alternative views of Christianity. [...] Was orthodoxy something that emerged out of the earliest period (the traditional view)? Or were there merely competing and alternative Christianities with no real orthodoxy present in that early period (the alternative or new school view)?
King (2009). "Which Early Christianity?". doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199271566.003.0004.
{{cite journal}} : Cite journal requires |journal= (help) |
---|
Per King, Karen L. (2008). "Which Early Christianity?". In Harvey, Susan Ashbrook; Hunter, David G. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. OUP Oxford. pp. 70, 80. ISBN 978-0-19-927156-6.
|
Per Behr, John (2013). Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity. OUP Oxford. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-0-19-166781-7.:
[Walter Bauer claimed] that Christianity was a diverse phenomenon from the beginning, that ‘varieties of Christianity’ arose around the Mediterranean, and that in some places what would later be called ‘heretical’ was initially normative. [...] Although some of Bauer’s reconstructions are inaccurate and have been dropped, the idea that Christianity was originally a diverse phenomenon has now been generally accepted.
While Bauer still utilized fairly static notions of orthodoxy and heresy, others developed the ‘Varieties’ model in a more historically dynamic fashion into a ‘trajectories’ model of early Christianity, tracing the movement of different trends over time. And yet, in a sense, the ‘varieties’ and ‘trajectories’ models still operate on the basis of some of the assumptions outlined by [Karen] King: they construe these different groups as defined and fixed entities, in varying degrees independent, and supposes that we can view them as different horses in a rerun of a race, keeping our eye all the time on the one we know to be the eventual winner and so defining the race itself in the terms given by the winner. Determining the reason why one group eventually came to dominate is no longer sought, as in early modern times, on the basis of a pure originating source, but rather, in equally modern terms, through the interaction of historical and socio-political forces.
74.138.111.159 (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC) && 20:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I checked Mack; what he actually writes is that at the time of Paul several Jesus-movements existed, which all gave their own, divergent interpretations of Jesus' teachings. As some others no doubt also have noticed, Mack doesn't dare to take the further step, that those divergent teachings did not point back to one person, but point back tovarious elaborations of a shared background qua mythology. Anyway, my fault qua the phrasing above; I'll correct it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Reminds me of,
- "[Frazer′s] subtitle of the first edition of The Golden Bough was ‘A Study in Comparative Religion’, whereas that of the second edition was ‘A Study in Magic and Religion’. [...] Although Jesus of Nazareth is never mentioned—Frazer had no stomach for religious polemic—only the slowest reader could fail to make the connection: if Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Dionysus are now only barbaric reminders of a backward age, can Jesus be any different? The conclusion follows that Christianity must also take its place on the same shelf as these outworn creeds." —Ackerman, Robert, ed. (2005). Selected Letters of Sir J. G. Frazer. OUP Oxford. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-19-926696-8. There is an amusing quote (I do not recall who said) about Frazer being like an explorer who maps in exquisite detail the outline of a new found island, but who never dares set foot on it. Thus Frazer is able to die in the bed at Cambridge that he slept in around forty years. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- Reminds me of,
James, Brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church
I came across this book: Alan Saxby (2015). James, Brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church: A Radical Exploration of Christian Origins. It "explores the possibility that James, the brother of Jesus, was leader of a movement in Jerusalem distinct from, yet contemporaneous (or earlier), with that of Jesus in Galilee" (quote from the original doctoral thesis; the link to the PDF is blacklisted, so one will have to Google it [ http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/5560/1/Saxby_thesis.pdf ]). Sounds like an interesting read for those interested in 'parallel sciences', so to speak.
But seriously, it's interesting to see that there are other possibilities for explaining Paul's disinterest in the/a earthly Jesus, other than "it was just a myth." Maybe it was both, a real life and a myth. Maybe it was the expected coming of God's Kingdom which was central in earliest Christianity, and was Jesus it's first martyr, and the first to be awakened again, the sign that God's reign was coming indeed. Who knows. Anyway, food for brain. Best regards to all, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a review. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC) && add demagiced link 74.138.111.159 (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Saxby verse Carrier
|
---|
"James, Brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church By Alan Saxby". wipfandstock.com. Per Carrier (25 April 2018). "Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus - Richard Carrier". Richard Carrier Blogs. |
74.138.111.159 (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it" - Bart Ehrman. [5]Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- "[N]o reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist." —Allen N.P.L. (2015) Clarifying the Scope of Pre-Fifth-Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae (c. 94 C.E.). Unpublished Philosophiae Doctor thesis, Potchefstroom: North-West University. [Allen curriculum vitae] – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- That, of course, is not the scholarly consensus though it is very interesting, IP74, that you have access to an unpublished phd thesis.Smeat75 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per Google Scholar @ [6], unpublished does not imply unavailable online @ http://dspace.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/14213/Allen_NPL.pdf [n.b. I previously posted this link, c.f. Archive 29 §. Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd] – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- That, of course, is not the scholarly consensus though it is very interesting, IP74, that you have access to an unpublished phd thesis.Smeat75 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- "[N]o reliable extra-biblical/scriptural accounts exist to support the historical existence of, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth, James the Just or John the Baptist." —Allen N.P.L. (2015) Clarifying the Scope of Pre-Fifth-Century C.E. Christian Interpolation in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae (c. 94 C.E.). Unpublished Philosophiae Doctor thesis, Potchefstroom: North-West University. [Allen curriculum vitae] – 74.138.111.159 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It is an interesting book. Saxby suggests that Paul's silence on jesus sayings etc. may originate with the Jerusalem Church around James, being equally silence. Saxby relates those sayings etc. To Peter & the Twelve, apparently suggesting that James was 'written out of the story'. I have to read further, but it's interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Does Saxby support a "Jerusalem brotherhood" contra Habermas?
NB: This content should probably be in §. The Pauline epistles. - 74.138.111.159 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[§. Josephus] Others speculate that he was referring to a mythic Christ that had already been historicized, or to fraternal brotherhood rather than a literal sibling. [Robert M. Price. The Christ-Myth Theory and its Problems, Atheist Press, 2011, p. 132, ISBN 9781578840175] This is dismissed by some in mainstream academia on the grounds that there is no evidence of a supposed "Jerusalem brotherhood". [The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, by Gary R. Habermas, College Press, 1996. pp. 31–35]
Article title and first sentence
Please note this op-ed on excess parenthetical "metadata" in lead. I just removed one of the "alternative names", plain "mythicist", as ridiculous. Obviously, in context, as Maurice Casey was writing in the "citation", the term "mythicist" can be used to refer to supporters of this theory, but only in context. Do we really need to burden the opening sentence with a list of variant names? (I really do not believe this is how normal encyclopedias are written.) Then we should consider the title: as I understand it, theologically speaking "Christ" is more a title than a reference to the person. In this case the title would more correctly be "Jesus myth theory"; the list of alternatives could be removed, and perhaps a sentence added about historical variation in the names used. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I could agree that "Jesus myth theory" may be a better title, considering that many scholars accept that a historical Jesus likely existed but that there was also a mythological one (with the powers attributed in the Gospels, the Christ of the Christians). It is probably somewhat contentious and would require a proper move discussion (WP:COMMONNAME also taken in consideration). —PaleoNeonate – 09:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:COMMONNAME the title should stay as the "Christ myth theory" as that is what its proponents call it. It is a silly term, I agree, it uses the word "myth" inaccurately, but that is what it is known as.Smeat75 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Section:Opponents
New user Lygu1560 blanked the section "Opponents" which reads "Few scholars have bothered to criticise Christ myth theories, regarding them as too outlandish to be worthy of serious criticism. Some notable exceptions are Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and Philip Jenkins" with an edit summary "Removing clear religious bias from phrasing"along with other changes that I reverted. He was adivised on his talk page by User:PaleoNeonate not to reinstate those edits without opening a discussion on this talk page. Today he blanked the same section again, ignoring this advice referring again to "clear religious bias" which is ridiculous, it is a matter of established historical fact, not religion, and those writers are historians. So I put it back again and user Imaginatorium took it out again with an edit summary "No, there is no consensus (among thinking people, not your "scholars") for this abusive and loaded description. Do no revert again without attempting to justify on talk". According to WP:BRD it is Lygu1560 who should have opened a discussion on talk after I reverted him, not me. And "thinking people" do not matter one little bit on WP, "your "scholars" are everything. I did not write that section but it is strictly accurate and should stay. I can expand it if wanted with more quotes from "your scholars" on what absolute nonsense the Christ myth theory is.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added a quote, with a reference, to that section from another one of "your scholars" - " Paul L. Maier, former Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and current professor emeritus in the Department of History there has stated ""Anyone who uses the argument that Jesus never existed is simply flaunting his ignorance." I have many more along the same lines if desired.Smeat75 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I rewrote the sentence that Lygu1560 and Imaginatorium object to with a direct quote from Robert van Voorst.Smeat75 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- The paragraph is still ludicrously biased. Of course you have "many more along the same lines", but they are all faith-based, and fundamentally inadmissible. I will edit the paragraph again, and remove the "bothered" word; please do not put it in without a neutral source that says that an independent survey found that a majority of these "scholars" said nothing because they "couldn't be bothered". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- While I understand that the scholarly consensus is against the myth theory, which the article should portray, I also agree that the tone of that sentence was problematic. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you Imaginatorium, that is fine. I agree that it is better to have a specific quote from a scholar rather than saying they "couldn't be bothered". This is how achieving consensus is supposed to work, not through edit-warring. (Though it really, really isn't "faith-based" to say that Jesus certainly existed, it is history-based, there are many professors and scholars of classics and ancient history quoted in the article and you will not find a single one who says anything different. Do you really think it is "fundamentally inadmissible" to cite what a "Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and current professor emeritus in the Department of History" says on this matter of ancient history?)Smeat75 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- You do not seem to be very familiar with the empirical method: one of the rules is that you are not allowed to Know the answer before you look for it. The paragraph below from Maier is classic apologetics: he knows the answer, so he repeats it a lot, and hopes that will be convincing. (His text might need copy-editing if it is a transcript.) This article is (supposed to be!) about people who have actually looked at the evidence, and found it extremely flimsy. The only evidence I have yet seen is, well, the Bible, plus about three sentences (paragraphs) in Roman writers. The counter to this never seems to be to point to any more evidence: either we are told we "don't know how modern schoarship works" (well, how does it work?) or we are told that this extremely flimsy evidence is immensely strong by the standards historians use, which leaves me wondering quite what historians are doing. Maier in particular appears to claim that there is as much evidence for both JCs, Christ and Caesar, which I do not think many (real) historians would accept. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you Imaginatorium, that is fine. I agree that it is better to have a specific quote from a scholar rather than saying they "couldn't be bothered". This is how achieving consensus is supposed to work, not through edit-warring. (Though it really, really isn't "faith-based" to say that Jesus certainly existed, it is history-based, there are many professors and scholars of classics and ancient history quoted in the article and you will not find a single one who says anything different. Do you really think it is "fundamentally inadmissible" to cite what a "Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University and current professor emeritus in the Department of History" says on this matter of ancient history?)Smeat75 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- While I understand that the scholarly consensus is against the myth theory, which the article should portray, I also agree that the tone of that sentence was problematic. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- The paragraph is still ludicrously biased. Of course you have "many more along the same lines", but they are all faith-based, and fundamentally inadmissible. I will edit the paragraph again, and remove the "bothered" word; please do not put it in without a neutral source that says that an independent survey found that a majority of these "scholars" said nothing because they "couldn't be bothered". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I rewrote the sentence that Lygu1560 and Imaginatorium object to with a direct quote from Robert van Voorst.Smeat75 (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
On WP we as editors do not decide that a professor of ancient history and emeritus professor of history isn't a "real"historian because he does not follow the empirical method. All we do is quote what scholars such as Maier say. This article allows the mythicists to make their case and then says why the scholarly consensus rejects it. There is a very big difference between ancient history and more recent history, sources for ancient history are very few, independent multiple attestation of an event from antiquity such as there is for the crucifixion is exceedingly rare.Smeat75 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- one of the rules is that you are not allowed to Know the answer before you look for it. - It is the Christ mythicists who do that, not historians. Anyone who knows anything about ancient history and examines the evidence with an open mind will conclude that Jesus certainly existed. It is the mythicists who have made up their minds and will not let the evidence get in their way.Smeat75 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Maier quote
Maier, Paul L. (2010) ap. "Historian Interview: Paul L. Maier". Apologetics 315 podcast. (13 December 2010) @ http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2010/12/historian-interview-paul-l-maier.html
[Per the argument that Jesus never existed] anybody who is using that argument is simply flaunting his ignorance, I hate to say it but it's about that bad. We have more documentation on Jesus Christ then anybody in the ancient world as far as that's concerned. There is no question whatever in the mind of any serious scholar anywhere in the world that there certainly was a historical personality named Jesus of Nazareth.
Now you can argue about whether he [Jesus] was the son of God or not, you can argue about the supernatural aspects of his life. But in terms of the historical character there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary and all the evidence is in the favor and I just can't stand the computer blogs and so many other would-be authorities trying to use this argument: "He's only a myth, he never lived." Well that's simply ridiculous on the face of the facts.
Cf. Ben Stanhope (2 March 2015). "Salon.com's Remarkably Bad Historical Jesus Article". Remythologized. [Maier cited:] The following quotes are taken from a video and audio compilation "Do Historians Believe Jesus Existed." YouTube video, 6:05. Dec 27, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP15Pc2Lljc
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:160c:a232:c5ea:e9b4:d2f9:f543 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Once Again (sigh), It Seems that I need to Post This - Sources Saying that "most scholars agree"
Citations
|
---|
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- This contribution does not appear to be signed. Please say if you added it. Otherwise it could be removed. It is of zero significance, because "Most scholars have to agree" in order to keep themselves in employment. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I added the user's name and timestamp. —PaleoNeonate – 12:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It is of zero significance, because "Most scholars have to agree" in order to keep themselves in employment.
Non sequitur. Most US-based lawyers have to agree that individual constitutional rights trump statutory law in order to keep themselves in employment. That doesn't change the fact that it's true.- Most contractors have to build to code in order to keep themselves in employment. Most police officers have to follow statutory guidelines and respect suspect's constitutional rights in order to keep themselves in employment. Most physicists have to avoid contradicting the standard model in order to keep themselves in employment. The list goes on and on. Attempts like this to reframe the scholarly consensus as a "party line" that must be toed ignore the blatantly obvious question of why that because the consensus to begin with. And in the modern age of growing secularism and outspoken atheism (including more than one of the world's leading Jesus scholars), attempting to answer that question with "religious dogma" is one of the most ignorant assumptions one could make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I added it, yes. And if you remove it, I'll just add it back in again because it is of great significance. If you can't see that, I can't help you. On the other hand, if you want to discuss it further, feel free; I'm willing. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and I was the one who added the humorous image near "expressions of contempt". —PaleoNeonate – 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
We do not use self-published material as sources
IP 71.218.57.83 added material from a book "Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed" by a non scholar, R G Price, printed by Lulu Publishing Services which is a self publishing service. See WP:SPS Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources... if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. I am removing the references to that self-published book.Smeat75 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, I also left a similar message on their talk page. Thanks for the comment, —PaleoNeonate – 12:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)