Talk:The God Who Wasn't There/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyvio claim

I did not write or edit this Wikipedia entry, but I DID write the plot summary in question. I am the director/producer of the movie The God Who Wasn't There and made a plot summary available free to all here. This plot summary was used, in part, by Microcinema, IMDb, Wikipedia and other sites. (Wikipedia also quoted some promotional text, but that text was put in quotes, appropriately indicating that that is how the film was marketed.) Additionally, this Wikipedia entry contains other material unique to Wikipedia. I strongly suspect the attempts to delete this entry are ideologically motivated, but, motivation aside, they are also entirely unwarranted. I request that the administrators re-activate this page and allow the Wikipedia community to edit it if there are improvements to be made. I freely gave the text in question to the public domain. This can be confirmed by contacting me through the film's official site. --BrianFlemming 19:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The article in question was listed on Vfd. In my opinion it was wrongly listed for a Vfd- and I would actually have voted 'keep',. However, I genuinely believed that parts of it were a copyvio - and I listed it as a possible copyright infringement (see [1] as is normal procedure. If it isn't a copyvio - and you can evidence that, then it will survive that procedure. If I was wrong about the copyvio than I am happy to apologise to you for my error. --Doc (?) 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

When material shows up that appears to be copied from another site, it is almost always a copyright infringement. The average person has little to no understanding of copyright, and will copy material from other web sites without a second thought. That dozens of such infringements show up on Wikipedia every day is proof enough of that. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What does a copyright owner have to do TO SAY IT'S OKAY TO USE THE MATERIAL? I wrote it, it's in the public domain, this would be obvious to anyone who looked.--BrianFlemming 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The material was tagged as a possible copyright infringement, the situation was resolved in under 36 hours, and it's time to drop it. Anger about a temporary notice placed on the article while sorting things out isn't productive, and the stress isn't healthy. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmm .... looks like the history of the changes here and all the discussion has been rewritten. I didn't know you could do that on Wikipedia.--Marcperkel 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Page history looks intact to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Page history is intact. There was a previous discussion on this page that got blanked at some point or other, relating to the status of the copyright. Seeing as the issue has been resolved, I see no purpose in restoring it, but it's there. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 16:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Much of the historical information in the film has been questioned for its accuracy, so viewers should be cautious in accepting historical claims presented." The preceding is not a particularly encyclopedic sentence. Noting or detailing the questions that have been raised regarding its accuracy is fine, but I don't know if such a general statement should be made, nor do I think that an article should be warning people about how they should view a movie (I wouldn't advocate adding such a warning to articles about the bible, much as I think it may deserve it). Any thoughts on how to rephrase it, or whether to just strike it out? Шизомби 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of New Testament historians agree that Jesus existed (despite the fact that most of those are not conservative Christians). The belief that Jesus did not exist belongs to a radical fringe group. To the very least, the majority opinion among scholars should be known. I'm adding that into the entry, and am giving the benefit of the doubt that this is a “growing” movement. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that whole paragraph is a bit biased. Probably best to remove it.—Laurence Boyce 17:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section is very poor - an Encylopaedia, at least one with an attempt at a NPOV does not tell people what they 'should' do: "...viewers should be cautious..." and "...interested viewers should investigate..." and "...the film should be considered as..." Tompagenet 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed the offending paragraph.—Laurence Boyce 16:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the author of the offending passage. Point taken. I will reword, removing the "should" statements, and just leave the criticisms. Adding comments to a "Criticisms" section without sounding biased is problematic, though. I welcome any help there. Don. 16 April 2006—211.28.71.84 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I editted the paragraph in "Criticisms" referring to "true believers", which appears to be a pejorative term, and replaced with a link to Carrier's comments. Don. --220.239.116.97 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer States Poor Filming Quality in the Movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

I decided the following review of the filming quality of Brian Flemming's movie "The God Who Wasn't There" should be alluded to.

Here is the review I read of the poor filming quality of Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There":

"The filming is poor. This is most likely the result of Flemming’s working from a shoestring budget and either his inexperience or lack of gifting. The poor quality is sometimes distracting. For instance, in two interviews with Robert Price and David and Barbara Mikkelson, there is a distracting reflection of camera light and sunlight in their eyeglasses. In the interview with Price, the camera can even be seen in his eyeglasses, because it is directly in front of him. Changing the angle would have easily eliminated this. Flemming did not bother to straighten the tilted lampshade in his interview with Price. The quality of the filming reaches its low in Flemming’s interview with Scott Butcher. Because of backlighting, Butcher looks very dark. Flemming uses only one camera throughout his interviews and asks his questions from behind the camera, producing the impression that one is viewing a homemade video rather than a professional production. The graphics are very repetitive, seldom change, and are of a low quality. Yet, as we shall see, the film’s technical difficulties are the least of its problems." [2] ken 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I'm not sure whether "Lastly, a reviewer of the movie The God Who Wasn't There stated that the filming quality of the movie was quite poor and cited some examples" sounds like an entry that belongs in an encyclopedia. "*A* reviewer"? And "cited some examples"? Perhaps if the link went to a movie production website... I think it should be removed -- Don --211.28.72.130 08:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don, I agree—I've already tried to make this point over here. But Buffalo still seems to think that the views of some Christian activist on Flemming's film-making skills are relevant. I guess we can overturn if it stays at two to one.—Laurence Boyce 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say get rid of the reference to that review. a short section on filming skills from "Answering infidels" should not be treated as an unbiased review. lunarsurface 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's gone.—Laurence Boyce 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section edit - most criticisms removed

I noticed that most of the criticisms section have been deleted. I will restore it, since I don't think that the criticisms were invalid, and are backed up by examples.

What has been put in seems slanted, e.g. "There he interviews a school administrator who seems to have expected more softball questions".

Perhaps a discussion needs to be on whether the removed criticisms are unfair or not? I'll put them back in for now. Don

-- 211.28.71.171 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I give up for now. That's the third time my comment that the movie has been questioned by theists and atheists alike, including by one of the interviewees, has been removed. This is the paragraph:

"Criticisms on points raised in the film have come from both theists and atheist scholars, including Richard Carrier, who is interviewed in the movie [3]. Brian Flemming has stated his intention to produce a 2nd edition of his documentary that will address the criticisms."

Perhaps linking to it is the problem? Though I thought that was required in claims of these kinds. I see nothing wrong with the paragraph itself, esp as it is located in a "Criticisms" section. -- Don

--211.28.71.171 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting the comment about criticisms from theists and atheists (since criticisms have come from both sources), but removed the mention of Richard Carrier and the link to his comments, which I guess is the sticking point since Carrier appears in the movie. -- Don --211.28.71.171 09:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comment has been removed again. Looks like mentioning that atheist scholars also found problems in the movie is the sticking point. I'm removing the other comment put in by me since it probably isn't useful criticism. I'll remove my link in external links also. -- Don --220.237.63.179 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello 132.241.x.x

Please do not make repeated anonymous edits to the article without first explaining your actions on talk.—Laurence Boyce 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit history is not the place to hold a discussion. Why don't you put in an appearance on the talk page? Then we can judge whether or not you are capable of holding a rational conversation. Perhaps you could start by telling us which parts of the film you see as being specifically anti-Catholic.—Laurence Boyce 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Gaining ground with non-Christian scholars"?

This article has been rewritten several times to make it appear that criticisms are from Christian apologists, while implying that newer (secular) scholarship is re-evaluating Jesus's historicity. I suspect that movie supporters don't want people to know that atheist scholars have questioned the movie's content as well. I know that my link to Richard Carrier's criticisms was removed a few times, so I'm not going to try to put it back. But I will comment here on the "gaining ground" comment that (I presume) one of the movie's supporters keeps putting back into criticisms.

In fact, the Jesus Myth had far more support 100 years ago. It hasn't been "gaining ground with non-Christian scholars", it remains a fringe theory with little support. How many peer-reviewed articles supporting the Jesus Myth have been published in the last 50 years? As far as I know, none. Unless you believe in conspiracy theory ("the Vatican is trying to suppress secular scholars publishing on this topic" -- and I've heard Jesus Mythers arguing just that!), who is it actually supposed to be gaining ground with, and how do they know? The only scholars currently supporting the Jesus Myth are interviewed in the movie. Can we ask for a citation showing that the Jesus Myth is "gaining ground with non-Christian scholars"? -- Don

211.28.67.153 14:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Don. I'm not particularly exercised by the issues you raise, and would be quite happy for you to edit the article to include secular criticism (to which end, I feel your case would be strengthened by the simple expedient of obtaining a Wikipedia account). However, I simply cannot resist joining the theological debate, and perhaps in the process, I may be able to shed some light on what a secularist might think of this film.

The God Who Wasn't There is, as I'm sure you know, largely based upon Earl Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle. I've got a copy of the book, but I haven't read it from cover to cover as life's too short. Doherty makes a number of interesting arguments, most notably that Saint Paul doesn't appear to know the first thing about the life of Jesus. He has also found a "smoking gun" which gets highlighted in the movie:

If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest. (Hebrews 8:4)

Well that's very interesting. Now I'm no biblical scholar, but I reckon I've just unearthed a "smoking gun" to outdo even Doherty's. Take this:

Seeing the disciples labouring at the oars against a head-wind, Jesus came towards them, walking on the lake. (Mark 6:48)

What this devastating line tells us straight away is, wait for it: the Gospel stories were made up. We know nothing at all about Jesus, save for these absurd accounts written decades after the alleged events, by some of his most fanatical followers. Any discussion about Jesus should really take it as read that we are talking about a mythical person – and yet many Christians appear to believe that Jesus actually said and did the things it says in the Gospels, even including the stuff that could not possibly be true.

This might help to explain why there have been so few peer-reviewed articles supporting the Jesus Myth – it's just not that interesting! Whereas most secular criticism tends to focus on the present-day realities of faith, people like Doherty and Flemming have actually taken the trouble to argue the case on Christian terrain. In a sense we should be grateful for them, and even more grateful for any secular criticism which they then attract. But in neither case is it going to be particularly representative for the reasons I have outlined.

Did Jesus the bloke exist? Probably. Did the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels exist? Well obviously not – and yet that's the "Jesus" that everyone talks about. Now pass me a beer.

Laurence Boyce 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Laurence. I've read through Doherty's book, and have debated him quite a few times mostly on the Internet Infidels forum. The problem with his idea is that there is no evidence that the people of Paul's time believed in a "fleshy sublunar realm". If you are interested, I talk about his thesis here (it also includes links to some of our debates): http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part4.htm#4.3

On the Gospel stories: I agree with you. I don't believe in the Gospel Jesus either, and wouldn't bother arguing for one, since the evidence (IMO) isn't there. The historical Jesus is another story. IMO Paul pretty clearly is referring to a historical Jesus (I discuss this on webpages listed in the link above). Usually mythicists raise the bar too high when talking about Paul -- they want historicists to have Paul give evidence for a Gospel Jesus instead of a historical Jesus. That Paul ceratinly doesn't do. But even secular scholars believe that Paul is talking about a historical Jesus. (It would have been nice to have seen Flemming interviewing such scholars to give their reasons, but I've never heard him doing so, even in the year from the time that the movie came out. It seems a bit of a gap in the debate, esp since he wants scholars to look into this). That's why I question the statement that mythicism is "gaining ground with non-Christian scholars" -- there is no evidence for it AFAIK. If anything, it is the reverse, esp if compared to 100 years ago.

On the "smoking gun" passage:

If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest. (Hebrews 8:4)

Richard Carrier himself (whom Flemming interviews in the movie) disagrees with that translation, as I discuss here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_update.htm

Just my 2 cents worth. I encourage people to look into the claims of the movie, like how pagan gods like Dionysus, Mithras, Thor(!) and gods from Thailand were supposed to have influenced earliest Christianity. Also to look at Paul in context of the period he was writing, and what he actually does say about Jesus (rather than to try to lock him into a "Gospel Jesus or bust" dichotomy) Unfortunately not a lot of people have done so, and seem to have taken the information in the movie at face value.

Anyway, nice discussing this with you. Next beer is on you! -- Don.

211.28.67.153 13:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get it – why are you spending so much time on this? Are you saying that Doherty is a mad conspiracy theorist? His book seems quite scholarly to me. I watched the DVD and, in the process, learned some things I didn't know and had a laugh – that was enough for me. I bet you've got a website debunking The Da Vinci Code as well!

To be honest, I have no idea whether the Jesus Myth is gaining ground with secular scholars – please remove the phrase if it doesn't ring true. Doesn't Robert Price support Doherty at least? My point is simply that the secular support will never balance the Christian criticism for reasons which are not entirely related to the quality of the arguments.

Laurence Boyce 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Laurence. On why I am spending so much time on this: I have an interest in early Christian and pagan writings, esp the first 2 centuries. I'm hoping to write a book on the topic at some stage, on early thoughts on cosmology, religion and the natural world. So when Flemming suggests that myths from Germany, India and Thailand(!) influenced early Christianity, I take notice. Have you ever seen Flemming try to back up his ideas about pagan gods influencing Christianity at all? Neither have I. The movie has been out for a year, but I haven't seen ONE reference to a source to back up how, say, Dionysus, Mithras or Osiris affected Christianity. Christianity was influenced by gods from Thailand and Germany? It is little better than ancient astronaut theory IMHO. Yet lots of reviewers have simply swallowed this. I wonder how many looked into it for themselves -- very few, I imagine. Other parts of the movie -- like Flemming's attack on the Christian Right -- never bothered me, and in fact more strength to him.

No, I never wrote a website to debunk The Da Vinci Code. The ideas in the book never really interested me. Early writings actually suggest there was a special relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, though way too late to be anything more than interesting speculation. I don't see a problem with a married Jesus myself. The other ideas in the book didn't concern me. But I can bet that there were quite a few hobbyists interested in Da Vinci and the Knight Templars who were as steamed as I was to see their interests misrepresented. Lots of people swallowed what Brown wrote about Da Vinci and the Knight Templars as well.

On Doherty: I hope you enjoy his book, but I suggest that you approach it with a skeptical mind (I'm sure you will of course!) Doherty has been pretty much refuted, which is probably why he isn't interested in publishing in a peer-reviewed publication. And it isn't just theists against him (which is what the revisor on the Criticisms page wants to suggest). Doherty has been feeling the heat on the Internet Infidels webpage, by **atheists** -- so much so that he has threatened a few times to stop posting there. Read this webpage, where a number of atheist scholars with ancient Greek and Latin skills are debating Doherty: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169780

Here is what Dr Gibson (scholar and non-theist!) says:

Let me answer you by saying why I can't take Earl's case for an MJ seriously. Among other things, there is how he has misconstred, misread, and cooked the evidence from the Ascension of Isaiah that he appeals to support the idea of a crucifixion in a heavenly realm, how tenditiously he has read 1 Cor. 2:6-8 and his "proof texts" in Hebrews, and how idiosyncratic and unsupportable his claims about the beliefs and worldviews of Middle Platonism are.

And there is also, of course, the torturous exegesis that he has engagaed in of the phrases above which seem to have no other grounds for being regarded as interpolations (the last argument of the desperate, I think) other than a committemnt to the MJ as an apriori.

To return to the topic, this is why I suggest that the Jesus Myth isn't "gaining ground with non-Christians". Compared to 100 years ago, it is actually the reverse. But as I said, whoever is editting the main page doesn't want it shown that the Jesus Myth has as little support among non-Christian scholars as among Christian ones. If you read Flemming's FAQs on his "God Movie" website, it's simply not the image he wants portrayed. "The Christians don't want you to know!" But in the meantime he hides his sources to back up his ideas. I think it is important to show that atheist scholars have as many problems with the movie as theist ones, otherwise it gives a false impression about its credibility. I don't know if it is much use editting the Criticisms section to that effect, so the mystery revisor will simply change it back. I may do it anyway -- Don.

211.28.67.153 10:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well you obviously know a thing or two about this area! I had a look at Flemming's FAQ's. I think they're pretty reasonable – I mean the guy's trying to sell some DVD's – he's allowed to be mildly sensational. And the film hardly presents the Jesus Myth as an open and shut case.

About the pagan gods stuff – surely the point is that there are some fairly striking coincidences which should require a touch more explanation than the line about Satan faking the evidence in advance. In the last 200 years, what with Darwin and modern biblical criticism, the onus now rests very much on the Christian to prove his case – but you wouldn't know it given the number of times you still hear, "the Bible says . . ." How ever crazy Doherty or Dan Brown might turn out to be, their stuff is still way more likely than the Gospel accounts which apparently 2 billion worldwide have bought into.

Bertrand Russell put it quite well, in the context of discussing the moral attributes of Jesus:

Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. (Why I am not a Christian, 1927)

I mean that's the other thing – even if you believe this stuff, it's still not very impressive. Jesus predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners – that's original! Right from the start, Christians seem to have got used to carrying on regardless in the teeth of the evidence – that'll be why they're so good at it!

Laurence Boyce 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In his zeal to fight the Jesus myth, Don takes too many un-Christian liberties with the facts.

EXAMPLE ONE. "So when Flemming suggests that myths from Germany, India and Thailand(!) influenced early Christianity..." Flemming has made no such claim. This suggestion is in Don's imagination, not in the film. To point out similarities is not the same as to claim a direct connection. (A resurrection after three days, for example, is clearly present in many deity stories that could not have directly influenced each other. The idea probably came from a third source -- the movements of celestial bodies.) Don should stop making statements of fact that are so obviously false. If the movie makes a specific claim, sure, call it to account. But don't pretend the movie makes claims it really doesn't make.

EXAMPLE TWO. "Doherty has been pretty much refuted, which is probably why he isn't interested in publishing in a peer-reviewed publication." Doherty IS interested in being published in journals, according to Doherty's website, but THEY have refused HIM. Don, unless you are flat-out making stuff up again, why don't you provide the source for your belief that Doherty "isn't interested in publishing in a peer-reviewed publication." Unless you do, I'll assume you're just engaging in your habit of making stuff up.

You really should stop going around lying about people, Don. Somebody might catch you.

--Nod --68.164.116.111 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nod,

YOUR EXAMPLE 1: Don: "So when Flemming suggests that myths from Germany, India and Thailand(!) influenced early Christianity..." Nod: "Flemming has made no such claim." Flemming on his FAQ page: "The Jesus story is the product of many influences, literally over the course of centuries."

Then which gods listed in his movie influenced Christianity? And what is the evidence? All I ask is that he provides his sources. Do you know what his sources are? Why hasn't he provided any in the year that the movie has been released? And if it is a question of just similarities, then what similarites do, say, Thor and Deva Tat (of Thailand) share with Jesus?

YOUR EXAMPLE 2: Don: "Doherty has been pretty much refuted, which is probably why he isn't interested in publishing in a peer-reviewed publication." Nod: "Doherty IS interested in being published in journals, according to Doherty's website, but THEY have refused HIM."

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168450&page=2) Doherty is asked "Have you ever considered submitting your work to a peer-reviewed journal in history?" He answers "No". That is dated 13-Jun-06, ** 2 weeks ago **.

Can you list WHICH peer-reviewed publications he has submitted articles to, and which have refused him? I'd really, really, really like to know. It should be exposed! (And how can we get copies of those articles?)

Nod: "You really should stop going around lying about people, Don."

If I've lied or misrepresented unintentionally, then I sincerely apologise.

-- Don --211.28.67.153 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don,

Your highly selective use of the record and your use of your own imagination as evidence DO amount to misrepresentation.

You apparently took this statement:

"The Jesus story is the product of many influences, literally over the course of centuries."

And crafted out of it this claim:

"...Flemming suggests that myths from Germany, India and Thailand(!) influenced early Christianity..."

If Flemming REALLY made such claims, you would be able to find direct quotations. Instead, you take a claim that virtually every scholar would acknowledge as uncontroversial (that the Jesus story contains in it elements, such as the resurrection, that go back centuries B.C.E.) and rewrite this uncontroversial claim into something you can attack. You should apologize for this dishonest behavior. If you ever publish your book, your record on the internet will follow you around, and it will look better that you apologized for your dishonesty than if you simply stonewall.

Look closely at this claim by you again:

"...Flemming suggests that myths from Germany, India and Thailand(!) influenced early Christianity..."

Someone reading this who is not familiar with the record, and simply trusts you to honestly synopsize it, will be seriously misled by this statement. This reader will assume that Flemming *actually made such suggestions*, when he has not. If you are trying to put out disinformation in an attempt to get Flemming to "reveal his sources," you are slaughtering your own credibility in the process.

Any why *would* he respond to someone so unethical anyway? Why would he respond to such a transparently troll-like attempt to smoke him out? You tell lies about him and then he is supposed to pay attention to you in order to correct your lies?

And here's a more complete quote from Doherty on that page, not a cherry-picked one like yours:

"Someone else noted that the Fourth R, the magazine of the Westar Institute (Jesus Seminar), turning down an invitation to not only present the mythicist position but to challenge it, is a good illustration. Their reasons for doing so were certainly of the ‘knee-jerk’ variety. If they were not automatically indisposed toward having the mythicist position voiced, mainstream scholarship would invite it to be so, considering its strength and popularity in more public circles, like the Internet. To close their minds and pages to it is simply an expression of haughty insularity and is hardly to be commended.

"Even Robert Price, who is a member of the Jesus Seminar (when last I looked), has not published anything in “peer-reviewed journals” on an openly mythicist subject. I’m not sure whether that is because he tried and they refused, or he simply didn’t bother, knowing the closed-door attitude that they have. Price, to all intents and purposes, is a mythicist, yet I don’t hear anyone here ranting about his lack of exposure in such journals.

"Incidentally, I have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Namely, The Journal of Higher Criticism. At the time (1997), it was published out of Drew University, edited by Robert Price and Darrell Doughty. It boasts quite a few major and respected scholars on its masthead, including Robert Eisenmann, Andrew J. Mattill, J. C. O’Neill, David Seeley, Hermann Detering, etc. Not all lean toward ultra-radicalism. Doesn’t this make my contribution “peer-reviewed”? Or is it really a question of defining the term so as to include only those who are already pre-disposed to rejecting the mythicist theory or regarding it as crackpot?"

Doherty has offered MONEY (i.e., to pay publication costs) to a journal to air the mythicist case. Your insinuation that he is afraid of academic review is disgraceful.

Your habit of distorting the record and making statements of fact that simply aren't true is at odds with your pose as an honest investigator. It is very hard to believe that these repeated events of dishonesty are unintentional.

--Nod --67.101.108.38 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please! Nod, I think I lean more towards your side of the argument, but I had to remove most of what you had written as it sounded pretty biased. Please let's try and get this into context – remember, all religion is bollocks!—Laurence Boyce 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good piece from Flemming all about: The Nice Jesus Character Who Can Be Extracted From The Gospels If You Take Out The Horrible Stuff And Who Most People Have In Mind When They Say "Jesus."—Laurence Boyce 12:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Deva Tat of Thailand"?

Hi Nod,

I certainly don't want to misrepresent Flemming. I just want to clarify what he is claiming. In his movie, he lists a number of gods, including Deva Tat of Thailand, and then a list of attributes similar to Christ. I'm a bit confused here. What is that list of gods doing there? Did their myths influence Christianity? If so, which ones and what is his evidence?

If the list is there just to say that these gods share similarities with Jesus, then I don't see the point. There were 1000s of gods, that some would share similarities is inevitable. Put a man in a room with a 1000 people and you are going to find similarities. I don't know any Christian who is or should be worried about this (unless you want to build a strawman argument).

But let's say that Flemming isn't claiming influence, let's say it is just similarities. What similarities does Deva Tat in Thailand have with Jesus, and what significance does this have?

I can't see why asking for clarification and evidence is a problem here. Aren't you interested in finding this out yourself?

-- Don --211.28.67.153 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Laurence,

You wrote, "About the pagan gods stuff – surely the point is that there are some fairly striking coincidences which should require a touch more explanation than the line about Satan faking the evidence in advance."

Two points: First, "Satan faking the evidence in advance" isn't quite the story, as I point out in my review here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis_Part2.htm. Justin Martyr wrote that the devil copied from prophecies from the Old Testament, but **got them wrong**. Christianity was regarded as a 'pernicious superstition' when Justin wrote, so he tried to convince the pagans that pagan religions were poor copies of Christianity (via Judaism). But the problem was that the parallels were so weak, that Justin had to stretch to make them. For example, he said that a man flying on Pegasus was the parallel to Christ ascending. So Justin wasn't trying to explain away 'striking coincidences' at all, he had to stretch them in order to **create** them. His excuse why the parallels were so weak was that the devil misunderstood them. If you read his examples, you will see no striking parallels -- Justin couldn't find them.

So I can't imagine where Flemming gets "this remains the explanation to this day". No-one has ever tried to explain away striking parallels, since they never existed.

That leads me on to my second point: if you don't believe me, then check out Flemming's claims on this for yourself. Flemming gives a list of gods, and a list of attributes that previous "saviour figures" had. Make a matrix, and then find out how many attributes are satisfied. I think you will be very surprised by the result. (There is a lot of misinformation out there, so I suggest sticking to sources that use primary sources)

These are the gods Flemming lists: Zoroaster, Thor, Tammuz, Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, Krishna, Horus, Hercules, Dionysus, Deva Tat (of Thailand), Beddru (Flemming has acknowledged Beddru is bogus though), Balder, Bacchus (not sure why Flemming lists Bacchus, since he is the Roman equivalent to the Greek Dionysus), Baal, Attis, Adonis

These are the attributes: Born of a virgin on December 25, Stars Appeared at Their Births, Visited by Magi from the East, Turned Water into Wine, Healed the Sick, Cast out Demons, Performed Miracles, Transfigured Before Followers, Rode Donkeys into the City, Betrayed for 30 Pieces of Silver, Celebrated Communal Meal with Bread and Wine which Represented the Savior’s Flesh and Blood, Killed on a Cross or Tree, Descended into Hell, Resurrected on Third Day, Ascended into Heaven to Forever Sit beside Father God And Become Divine Judge.

I've done some analysis here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/God_Who_Wasnt_There_analysis.htm#1.2

Some attributes like "performed miracles" are so general as to be unremarkable. Others are certainly bogus: "Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver", "Killed on a Cross or Tree", "Born of a virgin on December 25" -- none of the gods in Flemming's list fits those attributes. I have to wonder what Flemming was smoking to compile that list!!! I'd love to know where he got that information from.

I strongly suggest people to not take my word for anything though. I definitely encourage people to investigate the claims in his movie for themselves. I also encourage Christians to look into the origins of their religion for themselves -- it is a fascinating subject.

-- Don --211.28.67.153 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nod,

I hope by now that you've looked into Flemming's claims of similarities about Deva Tat, Thor, etc, and checked them for yourself. I'll be interested in your feedback on Deva Tat. I urge anyone interested in the topic to not take my word for things, but to check them out for yourself.

I want to go back to an earlier statement by you. You said, "Look closely at this claim by you again: "...Flemming suggests that myths from Germany, India and Thailand(!) influenced early Christianity..." Someone reading this who is not familiar with the record, and simply trusts you to honestly synopsize it, will be seriously misled by this statement. This reader will assume that Flemming *actually made such suggestions*, when he has not."

I thought that you had a point, and that I did owe Flemming an apology, but when I went through the movie again, this is certainly the impression that Flemming is raising. He has Christians interviewed about their knowledge of Mithras, Dionysus and Osiris (as though it were relevent to Christianity, without claiming how), gives a list of gods and the attributes of "previous" saviour figures, and uses the old "Satan knew in advance" argument. Is all he doing is saying "there are similarities" only, without suggesting influence? If so, then I wish he would clarify the point of pointing out all these "similarities" (which I hope you've found are now pretty much non-existent anyway). Once he's clarified what he means (AND GIVEN HIS SOURCES FINALLY!!!), then I will offer an apology. But for now, should I assume that when Flemming refers to gods from Germany, India and Thailand(!), he is saying that this isn't relevent to Christianity? No influence should be considered?

-- Don --GDon 06:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Myth and peer-review

Hi Nod,

First you say, "Doherty IS interested in being published in journals, according to Doherty's website, but THEY have refused HIM." Then you say that he HAS published in a peer-review journal. So I'm not sure what you are saying here. Didn't you say that they refuse him? Which journals then have actually REFUSED work that he actually submitted for peer-review?

You said that, "Doherty has offered MONEY (i.e., to pay publication costs) to a journal to air the mythicist case." The "Fourth R" journal is hardly a conservative religious journal, it has many atheist writers and regularly publishes articles disputing the majority of the events in the Gospels. So I doubt that they did it out of fear. Can you really not see the problem with offering money to a peer-reviewed journal to get work published??? Imagine if a peer-reviewed science magazine accepted money from a Creationist group to publish an article. What would that say about them? Should they do that, in your opinion? AFAIK, there is nothing to stop Doherty submitting an article through normal peer-review channels. You've given an example of where he was published. How many journals have REFUSED to publish work submitted through peer-reviewed channels (i.e. not where money is offered)? If that has happened, then it should be exposed, since it smacks of censorship.

Believe it or not, I would love to see Jesus Mythicists present their case to peer-reviewed publication. Personally I think that they would be torn apart (see my earlier comments from Dr Gibson, who is a scholar and an atheist). But who knows? Maybe I could be wrong.

-- Don --211.28.67.153 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nod,

Some more regarding the refusal by the "Fourth R" journal to accept money to publish an article by Doherty. The editor wrote: If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind... [T]he existence of Jesus is not a living issue among historical Jesus scholars. Perhaps it should be, but it just isn't, at least at present. With so many other living issues to explore, I don't think it would be responsible to devote the limited space in the 4R to your suggestion.

As I said, the "Fourth R" is hardly a conservative religious journal and regularly contains articles questioning the historicity of events in the Gospels and the OT. It was set up by the late Robert Funk, an atheist and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. So I doubt that the refusal was due to religious reasons.

And the fact is, scholars HAVE looked into mythicism. I'll repeat comments from Dr Jeffrey Gibson, atheist and New Testament scholar:

Let me answer you by saying why I can't take Earl [Doherty]'s case for an MJ seriously. Among other things, there is how he has misconstred, misread, and cooked the evidence from the Ascension of Isaiah that he appeals to support the idea of a crucifixion in a heavenly realm, how tenditiously he has read 1 Cor. 2:6-8 and his "proof texts" in Hebrews, and how idiosyncratic and unsupportable his claims about the beliefs and worldviews of Middle Platonism are.

And there is also, of course, the torturous exegesis that he has engaged in of the phrases above which seem to have no other grounds for being regarded as interpolations (the last argument of the desperate, I think) other than a committemnt to the MJ as an apriori.

-- GDon 07:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor reverts

Hi Satanael, I'm sorry to be so picky, but I'm trying to keep this article under control – mission impossible! To answer your questions: "mythical" is the term that the scholars use. It's called the "Jesus Myth" or the "Jesus Myth myth" depending on your POV. Why is "most" not neutral? See above! – Don would agree with you, and Nod wouldn't. My own view is that it probably is true to say that most scholars dissent, but that this is not particularly representative in the wider context.—Laurence Boyce 14:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, the academic definition of a myth is: a traditional narrative or story, often taking place outside or before history and often involving the supernatural, which is believed to be true by the group which tells it. Whether the story is true or not, isn't part of the definition.

This definition is the one commonly used anthropology and religious studies. The connotation to fiction or half-truth is more popular usage.

This article isn't by the Jesus Myth-"scholars", and isn't really about them either, therefore including their use of words isn't really relevant.

Second, this talkpage doesn't really seem to have a general concensus. To illustrate my point, look at, for example, Category:Christian mythology. Now we can all agree that most Christians, and not only them, but many religious individuals in general would strongly disagree to have their beliefs be called mythology, right? This is, of course, 'myth's' popular connotation to fictious; however, that is irrelevant, as the correct definition of myth doesn't contain any connotations to fictious, so it would be completely irrelevant to avoid using "myth" and "mythology" as valid descriptions or categories.

Jesus Mythers is an extremely small minority of the academic community, so it would be pointless to pander to what they might think and believe.

Lemegeton 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a fiction is broadly speaking something that has just been made up – a straight lie if you like. Whereas mythology suggests a process of ideas seeping into the general consciousness – a sort of distributed evolutionary process attributable to no one person in particular. However, this article actually does refer to a "fictional" Jesus in reference to the documentary itself. The bit you changed was specifically about Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle, which is subtitled "Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ?" and which devotes a whole section to the mythological aspect of the theory. So I feel that the line "The Jesus Puzzle lays out evidence for a mythical Christ" is as factual and neutral as it's going to get.

But generally the article is moving in your direction. As a result of the above discussion, we have, in the end, removed a line about the theory "gaining ground with non-Christian scholars" which, it was felt, really required some justification. I would say "a claim rejected by most contemporary New Testament historians" would be swinging the other way, especially when you've got Carrier and Price broadly backing the theory. "Many" is a nice middle way, which doesn't require too much justification and (most importantly) argument!

Laurence Boyce 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Laurence, I have no problem with myth over fiction, but I do with many over most. AFAIK, there are only two 'New Testament' scholars supporting mythicism, and they are interviewed in the movie: Carrier and Price. (Though even Carrier himself only has a masters in history and not a PhD, but he is well-known around the Secular Web). Other writers support mythicism, but I'm not aware of any other scholars in the field who support mythicism. GA Wells, for example, is a Professor of German. It doesn't mean he is wrong, but if referring to contemporary New Testament historians or amongst scholars in the field, I think there are only two. And that is less than it was 100 years ago. That's why talk of it 'catching on among non-Christian scholars' is not true -- it is the reverse. Can anyone name any other contemporary scholars in the field supporting mythicism besides Carrier and Price?

-- Don --211.28.67.153 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the important word here is "AFAIK." Because we only know of two in favour, it would be partial to say that the remainder must be against. Just as partial, in fact, as it would be to say that because the Jesus Myth theory is not cast-iron, then we can go on believing in "Jesus"! By the way, why don't you obtain a Wikipedia account? Are you from another realm too? The "Don Myth." It might catch on!—Laurence Boyce 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer Don's question - Thomas L. Thompson is a Professor of Biblical Studies and has published a book on the mythical nature of Jesus [4]. Another books by him is also concerned with the mythical nature of the bible in general. [5] Sophia 22:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sophia -- Thompson certainly doesn't think that the "Jesus of the Gospels" existed. Neither do I, for that matter. But what is his opinion on a historical Jesus? I'm not aware that he has said there was no HJ at the heart of Christianity. (FWIW, he describes himself as a "Joycean Catholic"). But here again, we see a scholar and university Professor writing against the Gospel Jesus and happily being published in journals. What is stopping Jesus Mythers? For Nod, what evidence is there the Jesus Mythers have been refused? It just sounds like conspiracy theory to me. (For Laurence, LOL! -- I will bust the "Don Myth" and get an account soon! :) ) -- Don --211.28.67.153 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a historical Jesus is that there were an awful lot of them! Even Josephus mentions 19 so at a time when "messiahs" were not rare :) you would expect a few of them to be called Jesus. Logically you can never prove that he did not exist (just like Bertrand Russell's tea pot going round the sun) so I guess there is nothing to publish. Also there is not much research money to be found for very controversial subjects (20 years ago my husband was in an obscure branch of astronomy that an influential professor thought was wrong - papers published recently have proven his model correct but too late for his academic career). Religion has had a powerful grip certainly in the UK on Universities through funding and the law. A few years ago there were books that could not be published solely by one publisher for fear of falling foul of the blasphemy laws here. This situation has been a god send (no pun intended) for conspiracy theorists who have taken a few sparse facts and made a lot of money.

I personally think the next few decades will see some interesting research such as this [6]. The God Who Wasn't There is a bit trashy in some ways but makes a very interesting point about Christian's perception of their own religion - they have no idea how Christianity as a church got from a guy in every day robes and sandals to monuments/chuches/rituals/laws etc. Early Christianity is a murky area that is glossed over - too many unanswerable questions come up when you think about it. I went to a Church run school and the compiling of the bible is something we never even touched upon. Throw in a few rules about going to hell if you doubt or question these things and a lot of the world is too superstitious to go there.

I shall be glad when the "Don-Myth" is busted! Sophia 09:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the film acts on two levels. Just getting a Christian to enquire "what is your evidence?" is in itself a minor moral victory! I have to agree – if one doesn't believe in the "Gospel Jesus" then what exactly is left? Which is why I don't see the Jesus Myth as being particularly radical. Any Christian who does not accept every last episode from the Gospels is already believing in a mythical Christ. This from the Earl Doherty article:

Doherty's belief that there was no historical Jesus contrasts with the view of secularists who contend Jesus was a real person whose story has been told in the language of myth.

I disagree. I don't think there's any contrast at all, rather the two positions gently merge into one another – before rapidly merging into yet a third position: "who cares?"

Laurence Boyce 14:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The best comment I've read here is that we all must secretly believe there is something in Christianity or we wouldn't bother to edit these articles - we "protest too much"! The fact that my kids have to sit through a "broadly and in the main Christian" worship every day at school unless I specifically withdraw them may also have something to do with it as well.

I agree that there is no contrast and that no definitive "did he" or "didn't he" exist matters to this subject. You should try that line on the Christianity page that unless you believe in Sola scriptura you're an implicit Jesus myth convert!!! Sophia 15:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in truth we protest too little.—Laurence Boyce 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair point, but surely that Christians go too far doesn't mean that we should accept the reverse. Most of the information in Flemming's movie is, simply, wrong. Even if there was no historical Jesus, Flemming's information on similarities of Deva Tat, is still incorrect. Even if Jesus was God, the Bible is still not inerrant. There is a danger of not examining the arguements on their own merits. As I said in my review, there is little information for a historical Jesus, and questioning his existence is a valid line of inquiry. But that doesn't mean that any claim should be accepted. I see Flemming's brand of pseudohistory as being every bit as bad as any other revisionism. Fundy Christians are more dangerous, but only because they are more organized. They are two peas in a pod. If you don't believe me, start asking Jesus Mythers for their sources. You'll soon be accused of lying, etc. Even atheists (like Dr Gibson above) are accused of being secretly Christians if they support a historical Jesus. Notice how Nod above never came back? If he had, I'd bet you that it would be to accuse me of lying again, or missing the big picture, or lacking imagination -- I've heard it all -- anything but answer specific questions. The sad fact is that few reviews actually looked into the claims of the movie -- it was simply assumed that the contents were accurate. The naivete is bemusing. I am fighting the good fight for Truth, Justice and the Skeptical Way! Heheh. I think these claims should be examined for their own worth. There's too much misinformation out there, and theists aren't any better, by the way. Sorry for the long rant!

GDon 07:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)GDon

Well we know that theists are no better; in fact they've made a career out of misinformation. And I'm starting to think that there is such a thing as a secret Christian; the cultural and emotional ties do run very deep. Suppose we ask Christians for their sources instead? Only once we've flushed the Gospels away, I don't think they've got any. Are Jesus Mythers mad? I don't know. But I bet they don't drink the blood of Christ once a week!—Laurence Boyce 08:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don you really need to come over to the Jesus as myth article as you can imagine the resident Christian POV makes sure our sources are spot on. It does need some work however as there are some unreferenced claims and I would love to be able to get rid of the "scare" tag at some point. Sophia 07:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mythical vs fictional

Hi Satanael. I have reverted your recent edit. I think we've already had this discussion in the section above. The term "mythical" is used repeatedly in the movie, and also in the book The Jesus Puzzle upon which the movie is loosely based. I am sorry if you do not feel the term is appropriate, but it seems to me that whatever one may think about Jesus, he certainly has a certain mythical status. That, I'm guessing, is why the term was used by both Doherty and Flemming. Thank you for your input. Laurence Boyce 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine and all, but the makers of the documentary don't decide on how this article is written, or which words to be used. It doesn't matter if they used the term "cream-cake". A biologist featuring in a documentary about virgin birth(s) can call it "immaculate conception" all he wants, but that wouldn't mean an article about that documentary should follow his example. Lemegeton 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lemegeton/Satanael. I see you have waited a week before re-inserting your changes. I would be grateful if you would let me know why you are persisting with this and what your issue is with respect to the term "mythical." I accept your broader point that simply because somebody employs a term, does not in itself make it suitable; but in this case it seems to me that more or less everyone is using the term. It's called the "Jesus Myth," and it seems like a perfectly reasonable term to use, denoting as it does both the concept of a fictional character but equally of a character born out of ancient mythological concepts. So please tell us why you consider this term to be inappropriate. Laurence Boyce 17:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What I find especially absurd is that the folks quoted in the movie assume the existence of all kinds of people (such as Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, Peter, and Paul) in order to prove the non-existence of Jesus. Shouldn't they establish the existence of the others first? Exdejesus 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more "reductio ad absurdum" than absurd as such. It is entirely reasonable, for instance, to assume that the Bible is the word of God, and then to reason from that point onwards arriving at a set of contradictions thereby disproving the original assumption. That said, some of the characters you mention have a much sounder historical provenance than does Jesus. Laurence Boyce 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've had no response to the main point so I think I'm going to put things back the way they were. Laurence Boyce 19:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

First of all, citations are needed for the claim that something is "disputed by many contemporary New Testament scholars and historians". Secondly, one must establish that the claim that Jesus is entirely fictional is indeed relevant to the message of the movie. From the FAQ:

"Q: Does everyone in the movie claim that Jesus is most likely fictional?

A: No. Only Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price make claims in this area. Others in the movie -- including Sam Harris and Alan Dundes -- express no opinion on the historical status of Jesus and are interviewed for their perspectives in other areas."

Unless citations can be provided, and one can establish that the claim that Jesus never existed as just a normal man is central to the movie, the criticism section should be rewritten or simply removed. --Ritarri 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that criticism section doesn't really say anything beyond the fact that some Christians have criticised the film, which they obviously have done. I think we should remove the section. Laurence Boyce 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a small point, but I believe Alan Dundes' disbelief in Jesus' historicity is implicit, given his recitation of Raglan's scale. He didn't attempt to dispute any point Somerset made. GeorgeC 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Some points in the recent edit war

There is no point in trying to cover up the following facts:

• "http://www.thegodmovie.com" is the official web site of the movie "The God Who Wasn't There".
• Scott Butcher did appear in the movie; see [7].

Also, what's up with the vandalism of Earl Doherty's book description? -- Cat Whisperer 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance - this article is a "crank magnet" for obvious reasons. Sophia 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

There is an audio interview with Dawkins in the special features but that hardly qualifies him a place in the credits of the movie. I have the dvd and it doesn't include Dawkins in the credits for the movie itself. He's only mentioned in the special features section. I think his name should be removed from where it currently is. Skeptic Jim 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There are others who shouldn't be there too. The dvd cover says this...

Beyond Belief Media Presents "The god who wasn't there" Scott Butcher, Richard Carrier, Alan Dundes, Sam Harris, Barbara & David P. Mikkelson, Robert M. Price, Ronald Sipius Featuring audio commentry from Richard Dawkins, Earl Doherty and the Raving Atheist Music by DJ Madson Co-Producer Amanda Jackson, Written, Directed and Narrated by Brian Flemming Skeptic Jim 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I just removed Dawkings and Doherty from the "starring" list. Anything else? -- Cat Whisperer 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Link

The following link answers all of the so called claims of the movie: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.102.76 (talk) 14:38, December 27, 2006

---

Archive 1