Wikipedia:Peer review/Christ myth theory/archive1

Christ myth theory

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has made serious progress in the last few months, it has recently obtained GA status, and is within striking distance of FA status (I posted it for FA review only to have it shot down for somewhat dubious reasons; Ruhrfisch has given a special dispensation to allow the article a PR prior to the normal 2 week wait time). Needless to say, this is an article that attracts a lot of fringe attention and knee-jerk criticism. But if Intelligent Design and Xenu can make it to FA status then, theoretically, so can this article. To ensure that the Peer Review is actually helpful (and not just a rerun of old, baseless arguments) I'd really appreciate comments from people who are at least tangentially familiar with the general topic; editors with earned degrees in history, religion, theology, literature, and so forth would be especially helpful, as would comments from professional post-secondary academics of any sort. Please read the entire article (including footnotes when necessary, as well as the FAQ if need be) before commenting.

Thanks, Eugene (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here that there is an active request for mediation Requests_for_mediation/Christ_myth_theory that is specifically addressing some of the points below. Sophia ♫ 08:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter, but History of advocacy sounds like an odd heading - mainly "advocacy" comes across oddly. Maybe I'd just call it history.

Reply: The article once referred to that section simply as "history", but when the "historical responses" section was added and fleshed out, "history" began to seem a little inspecific. Would, perhaps, "historical advocates" be better than "history of advocacy"? Eugene (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed

Comments from Brianboulton

I note that the page has a temporary full protection against recent edit-warring. I'll try and get as much of my review done before the protection expires on 10 March. I'll post my review comments as I go along; as a taster, here are some on the lead. I am dividing my comments between "substantive" and "prose issues":-

• Lead
  • Substantive
    • "The proponents of the theory trace the evolution of Christianity through a conjectural understanding of the evolution of the New Testament literature and thus give primacy to the epistles over the gospels in determining the views of the earliest Christians." I'm not sure what "thus" is doing in this sentence. It implies that the latter clause follows from the former, which does not seem to be the case. Fixed.
    • The final paragraph of the lead needs qualifying in two important respects. First, "biblical scholars and historians being highly dismissive of it, viewing it as pseudo-scholarship." You seem to be saying that every biblical scholar and every historian holds this view, which I doubt can be known to be true. I believe the phrase should be preceded by "most" or "many". Secondly, I think that for neutrality's sake the lead has to stop at "pseudo-scholarship". The remaining information suggests to the reader that believers in the Christ myth are both wicked and stupid. Maybe they are, but it is not the job of an encyclopedia article to push that agenda. These views should be presented in the article proper, but not in the lead. Judgements such as "even gone as far as" are unsuitable in an encyclopedia.

Reply: A number of reliable sources indicate that no serious historians or biblical scholars support the theory. One, Perrin, is quite forceful about it. Does that change anything? As for the denialist comparisons, what if we replace the last sentence of the lead with Powell's quote? As the Society of Biblical Literature's Historical Jesus Division chairman, such a practice would mirror the intelligent design article, which has achieved FA status. Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply: You said that "The remaining information [i.e., the comparison to Holocaust denial] suggests to the reader that believers in the Christ myth are both wicked and stupid". Of course, that is possible, but I sincerely doubt it; however, there is another option: a person may simply not be sufficiently aware of the evidence, the historical methodology, and/or the implications on the science of history that such a position entails. I mean, we are NOT contending that Jesus is God, the Son of God, the Messiah, or any other Christian theological point. Rather, the article is about "...the contention that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical person..." (bold added). Thus, a person can doubt the historicity of Jesus (and, I submit, that an insufficient knowledge of historical methodology is indeed what is most often the reason for doing so) without being "wicked and stupid". Full disclose: I'm a party to the mediation of this article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Most people would consider holocaust denial wicked and moon-landing scepticism stupid. By opening with the suggestion that proponents of the mythical Christ theory might be equated with holocaust deniers and moon-landing sceptics is to suggest that they may be likewise tainted. The final lead sentence merely adds emphasis to what has been clearly stated in the previous sentence; it has no other function. However, its presence damages the neutral tone required from the article, and for that reason should be eliminated. Note: I am not going to answer further points until I have completed my review, which I want to do in the next couple of days while the protection holds. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Eugene (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose
    • "Attention is often drawn..." Passive voice Fixed.
    • "The origins of the theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s and the first academic advocate was the 19th century historian and theologian Bruno Bauer." The second "and" makes a really awkward single sentence. Suggest a semicolon after "1790s" instead of the "and".

The GA reviewer objected to the semicolons sprinkled throughout the page. Who trumps who here? Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "And authors such as George Albert Wells..." Sentences should not begin with conjunctions. Fixed.

More tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

• Early proponents
  • Substantive
    • I don't understand "organically/accidentally" in the context of this sentence. Is the meaning "randomly"?

I've cut the phrase down to merely "organically". The idea is that belief in Jesus developed the way greek mythology developed, bit by bit through tellings and retellings and other socio-religious pressures. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "an obscure historical figure": "obscure", or "unknown" (or "unidentifiable")?

Obscure in the sense that he wasn't important in his time and is now completely lost to history. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Now that the entire gospel tradition could be traced to a single author..." Too definitive. We are dealing with Bauer's theories. Thus: "If the entire gospel tradition could be traced to a single author..." Fixed.
  • Prose
    • The "though" in the first line of the first subsection is superfluous and should be omitted

"Though" is being used to set the Frenchmen apart from the English deists that preceded them. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "solar myths" should not be hyphenated Fixed.

• Early 20th century
  • Substantive
    • Editorial opinion? "ranging from the fairly scholarly to the highly fanciful." Who is defining the subjective terms "fairly scholarly" and "highly fanciful"?

Reply: I thought that denying most pre-16th century history was self-evidently fanciful; I used the phrase "fairly scholarly" merely for contrast. What would you recommend in place of these phrases? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the "highly fanciful", which you have exemplified, but "fairly scholarly" should, for neutrality's sake, read merely "scholarly". Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

• • • Quote: "proved to be a tempting target for the deniers of Jesus' historicity" needs attribution in the text Fixed.
    • "Once references to "the twelve" and to Jesus' institution of the Eucharist were rejected as interpolations, Robertson argued..." Was Robertson merely hypothesising the rejection of these references, or basing his argument on evidence? If so, what evidence?

Robertson mostly just assumed that these details were later interpretations since such a view was neccesary fpr his overall thesis to stand. While he does try to provide a rationale for rejecting these details later in that book, it's convoluted, sprawling, and difficult to summarize in any meaningful way. Thankfully, at the point cited by the Wikipedia article, Robertson just declares, ipse dixit, that the passages in question "have every mark of interpolation" and moves on to deliver the quote that's integrated into the article. Eugene (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • What evidence was found in Acts to support the existence of the aforementioned cults? Fixed.
    • "Whatever modest fame Robertson and Smith had achieved, they were soon over-shadowed by Arthur Drews..." Sounds like more editorial opinion. (NB no hyphen in "overshadowed")

Dropped the hyphen. Drews is widely considered the second most important (after Bauer) CMT advcate; does this make room for the editorializing? Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Soviet adoption: the implication that the Soviet Union "adopted" the mythical Christ theory, or indeed that the theory played any major part in the development of Soviet education, is highly questionable. The theory may have been propogated by a few politicians and educationists, was it mainstream? You would need to produce much more evidence to demonstrate that it was.

Reply: This contention is currently sourced with two footnotes (Haber's and Nikiforov's) that use phrases like "one of the cornerstones of the new state's anti-religious campaign" and "One of its most important components". How much more is needed? I could include a sourced reference to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia; would that suffice? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes that you cite evidence a campaign, rather than an "adoption" of the Christ myth theory as state policy. As you acknowledge, advocacy for theory was short-lived. The title of the section should be "Soviet advocacy" (or similar), rather than "Soviet adoption". Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've included an allusion to the official government approved Great Soviet Encyclopedia. With this addition I think "adoption" should be able to stand. (Wikipedia refers to various countries "adopting" the metric system.)[1] Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose
    • "These authors also made use of..." Clarify who "these authors" are.
    • Religiongeschichte - foreign names/expressions should be italicised per MOS Fixed.
    • "Fourth Gospel" requires explanation Fixed.
    • "At around the same time..." is too vague a wording with which to begin a new section or subsection. Needs to be more specific.
    • "...as such a historical focus conflicted with his monistic predilections." This is not wording that will mean much to a general reader. Such phrasing needs to be modified to make it more generally comprehensible. Fixed.
    • "Gnostic" requires a link Fixed.
    • Descriptions such as "the celebrated..." should be avoided. And why begin the Russell sentence with "Even..."?

I've cut "celebrated". Russell is preceeded by "even" since he's, by far, the most widely known person who happened to associate himself with the theory in past generations. The structure is basically: virtual unknown, virtual unknown, total crackpot, marginal academic, virtual unknown... and even Bertrand Russell. Is that okay? Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Recent proponents
  • Substantive
    • The brief summary of the views of Allegro is uninformative. It tells us nothing about his advocacy of the Christ myth theory. Fixed.
    • Robert M Price should be introduced with a description (Professor, etc), as you have Wells, Allegro etc (link is not enough).

Reply: Price is currently a "professor" at an unaccredited "seminary" that seems to lack even a physical plant. It looks like his most substantive current position is his role as co-host of "Point of Inquiry", an obscure humanist radio program. So, while his education is solidly impressive, his positions are not. What description would you recommend in this case? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Price's credentials seem somewhat dubious; is he honestly worth including, let alone in a subsection of his own? There are plenty enough examples without him. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Price is probably the most relevantly credentialed advocate of the theory since Bauer (two PhDs, one in theology, the other in New Testament). He's basically the only such person still pushing the theory these days and his name comes up from time to time in the secondary literature. I'd rather keep him. Also, I'm sure that if I try to drop him, all the lay CMT pushers who haunt the article and its talk page would throw an absolute fit. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Prose
    • There is a hint of editorial voice in such statements as: "John M. Allegro is likely the earliest well-known modern advocate of the Christ myth theory", and that Wells "quickly superseded Allegro as the premier advocate of the Christ myth theory." These subjective opinions are best avoided.

I hope to conclude tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Final segment

• Arguments
  • Substantive
    • None
  • Prose
    • "Many proponents of the Christ myth theory..." invites the question "Who are they?" I believe, however, you are summarising a general position held by Christ myth advocates, and it may be wise to omit the "many". Fixed.
    • Clumsy, overlong sentence: "Christ myth theorists often reject the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, who seem to indicate an early belief in a historical Jesus (such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch), by either deeming their writings spurious forgeries or by bracketing off the most pertinent passages in their works as later interpolations." Suggest: "Christ myth theorists often reject the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, which seems to indicate an early belief in a historical Jesus. Their writings are either dismissed as forgeries, or the most pertinent passages in their works are classified as later interpolations." (Note that "spurious forgeries" is tautologous) Fixed.
    • "Perhaps the most common argument presented..." → "An argument commonly presented..." Fixed.
    • "and so on" is not encyclopedic Fixed.
    • "entirely explicable with reference to..." → "entirely explicable by reference to..." better. Fixed.
• Historical responses
  • Substantive
    • Can the essence of Conybeare's arguments be summarised (as is done with others)?
  • Prose
    • argued "vigorously" - POVish Fixed.
• Affirmation of historical Jesus
  • Substantive
    • "a number of commonly accepted critical criteria establish the historicity of Jesus" Not "establish", but "support". The wording which follows: "...and thus oppose the Christ myth theory" is redundant. Fixed.
    • Multiple attestation: on what evidence do "modern scholars" base their belief in multiple sources? Also, "modern scholars" appears to subsume all modern scholarship.

Reply: It's been objected that this article can appear to be a content fork of historicity of Jesus. I don't think that's really true, but I've tried to avoid reproducing too much of that article in this section to avoid the critique. What do you suggest here? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "...mainstream scholarship believes the writings of Josephus contain multiple authentic references to Jesus." Does it? What are the references in Josephus to Jesus Christ, beyond those of the Testimonium Flavianum and the passage relating to James? There are many references in Josephus to other persons called Jesus, but none of these refer to Christ.

Reply: Two doesn't count as multiple? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedantically it does, but the word "multiple" as used here is WP:WEASEL, since you know the number is two. Saying "multiple" instead of "two" is intended to imply more than two.Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

• • Prose
    • Bullet point format in prose is generally disapproved by WP:MOS. Suggest you make these level-4 headings Fixed.
    • "an historical" rather than "a historical"

Reply: My ancestors didn't throw a bunch of tea into Boston harbor so that I'd have to say "an historical"! :-) Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • "...is nevertheless believed by a large majority of scholars to also preserve a comment regarding Jesus original to the text."is nevertheless believed by a large majority of scholars to also preserve a comment regarding Jesus original to the text." Tortured prose, try: "...is nevertheless believed by a large majority of scholars to preserve an original comment regarding Jesus." Fixed.
• Rejection of alleged mythological parallels
  • Substantive: The problem with this section is that it is full of assertions ("mainstream critical scholarship rejects...", "Scholars believe...", "...widely seen as inaccurate and historically slipshod." These assertions are supposedly supported by citations, which are in fact footnotes which often merely repeat the assertions. Ref [126] includes an argument between John Dickson and Chris Forbes; why should we accept the authority of Forbes over Dickson? In the context of a neutral encyclopedia article, this section is problematic and needs to be considered in its entirety.

Reply: Dickson is interviewing Forbes in the footnote; he's merely setting him up, repeating the claims found in the film Zeitgeist, so Forbes can offer his scholarly opinion. As for the other issues, shouldn't WP:RS citations that directly support an in-text statement ("merely repeat the assertions") be enough? What more is necessary? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The question I am asking is, when a citation is to a discussion as with Dickson and Forbes, how is the general reader to know which of these two should be treated as authoritative? Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

• Methodological concerns
  • Substantive
    • The description "experts" should not be preempted for those of your own viewpoint Fixed.
    • Who is Bart Ehrman, and why is his viewpoint useful? Fixed.
    • "Scholars from a range of ideological viewpoints have further suggested..." Who are these scholars, and what is the evidence that they represent "a range of ideological viewpoints"? We should also be told who the scholars are that have made the flat-earth etc comparisons, rather than making do with an unidentified "number of scholars"

Reply: WP:FRINGE discourages the use of particular attribution in articles like this. Also, the phrase "number of scholars" mirrors the lead of the FA intelligent design, which states "...some have called it junk science". Also, there are about 10 different sources classing the CMT with various other examples of denialism--to include all their names in the in-line text would seem excessive. Do these points change anything? Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my point. I am not saying you need to name the people who espouse flat-earthism, holocaust denial, etc. I am saying you need to name those who have equated CMT with these fringe theories.Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I get you're point, but as I said, there are nine different authors writting in 10 different sources who have "equated CMT with these fringe theories". That seems like a lot of names to include in the in-line text and WP:FRINGE discourages such a practice anyway. Eugene (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, now the article contains a particular attribution at this point. Eugene (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Modern scholarly consensus
  • • Wright's summary looks weak, lightweight, dismissive. It is one man's opinion, and doesn't deserve to be given under such an authoritative title. I also wonder why you thought it worthwhile using such a long verbatim quote to say so little.

Reply: Wright's quote was chosen because of his academic standing and because it addresses a number of issues pertinent to the CMT: (1) lots of evidence exists for a historical Jesus, (2) archeological evidence isn't forthcoming, but even that can exist for non-historical persons, like pagan Gods, so it shouldn't be given too much weight over documentary evidence, (3) the evidence locates Jesus in the AD 20s-30, (4) the evidence fits well with Judaism, not paganism, (5) virtually no historians take the CMT seriously, (6) passing reference is made to Wells and Allegro to demonstrate an awareness of their work, (7) the work of recent CMT advocates is said to have made no impression on scholars of any ideological persuasion. Even the dismissive tone is important (8) as it is itself representative of the scholarly consensus (See statement by Price.). Eugene (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:When not to use quotations. Specifically: "quotations should be avoided when "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." The Wright quote serves to imply the non-neutrality of the article, which is called "Christ myth theory", not "Refutation of the Christ myth theory". While most of the article is in my view sufficiently dispassionate to meet WP's neutrality requirements (apart from minor phrasings that can easily be tweaked), the "refutation" agenda emerges towards the end. Wright's "summing-up" is a case in point, and its use should be reconsidered. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Fixed.

I have some further observations to make on the sourcing and the use of footnotes, but they will be given later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• The bibliography lists over 100 titles. In accordance with general Wikipdia practice this should be divided between "Sources", i.e. texts cited in the article or footnotes, and "Additional reading". That way it will be possible to see more quickly what sources have been used in the article. All the works listed in the bibliography are mentioned/cited in that article. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hang on. If you are simply mentioning books without citing them, they shouldn't be listed with cited sources. If you are using them to support your text, they should be properly cited, for verification purposes. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • So books merely alluded to in the article but not cited should be moved to an "additional reading" section? Eugene (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Footnotes should be listed separately from citations. Personally I see no need to incorporate these massive verbatim quotations into footnotes. If they are merely reinforcing what's already in the text, citation should be enough. If there is key information in these footnotes it ought to be in the text. The huge number of quotations in the footnotes (I agree that they're ugly and seemingly unnecessary) are only there because the page is the routine target of vandalism/disruptive POV editing in which an editor assumes the page is "full of lies". I fear that without the quotes this would only become more common. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have been so long with these final comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from H1nkles

I have a minor in Biblical studies and have taken seminary classes on theology. Not sure if that qualifies per your request but I'll give the article a go. I'm going to try and look more at content and POV issues (since that appears to have derailed the last FAC), rather than prose/writing issues.

• You mention both a "spring equinox" and a "spring solstice" in the discussion of Dupuis' beliefs. Isn't there only a vernal equinox? I can't believe that no one noticed that until now! Fixed. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• "However, their influence even in France did not outlast the first quarter of the nineteenth century. They had based their views on limited historical data and later critics showed, for example, that the birth of Jesus was not placed in December until the 4th century."

This section is on the views of early proponents. Save critique of their views for another section. .Interesting point; I'll bring it up on the talk page. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• " The Gentile party represented Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection in mystery-plays in which, wishing to disassociate the cult from Judaism, they attributed his execution to the Jewish authorities and his betrayal to "a Jew"

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to be saying. What Gentile party is Robertson referring to. Also the writing isn't very clean. "...plays in which, wishing to disassociate the cult from Judaism..." what is meant by plays in which? I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious but the whole phrase is a bit confusing to me.The Gentile party refers to the Gentiles converted by Paul who were introduced in the previous sentence. I've changed "The Gentile party" to "This Gentile party" for clarity's sake. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent thank you. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion of Wells' stance is concerning to me. At first it is outlining his theory that Jesus was mythical and then it changes into his "about face" and his rejection of his original position. I would suggest filling out his initial beliefs here and then moving his "about face" discussion into a critique section. Include a reference to it but keep all support for the theory in these sections and then introduce critique of the theory later. That's my opinion.Well's new position, while not a form of the Christ myth theory proper, is still lumped in with the other literature from time to time so I don't think that detailing it where it currently stands constitutes a critique. I'd rather keep it where it is. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough see below for more thoughts on where to put the various arguments. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

More to come. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I find the Soviet use of the theory to support their atheistic agenda to be very interesting. Just thought you'd like to know.
• In the Mythological parallels section I would add a synthesis of the solar/astrological cult arguments postulated by Dupuis. You discuss syncretism with classic mythological deities, and OT figures, but you have not summarized the zodiac/solar cult discussion previously mentioned in the article.
• Is there a reason that uses of the word "biblical" are not capitalized? Just an quick observation."Biblical" used to be sometimes capitalized and sometimes not in the article. I standardized it recently and opted for non-caps since m-w.com doesn't cap it. Eugene (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also be sure to be consistent in the spelling of words, some of the time I read a British spelling and other times I read an American English spelling. Another quick observation. No problem, but which words are you referring to? Eugene (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Why use the adjective "magisterial" in describing The Quest of the Historical Jesus? Seems a bit peacockish. Fixed
• I have to agree with Brianboulton about the final quote. The phrases are inflammatory (skinhead and denial of the Holocaust), which leaves the impression that not only is the theory idiotic but proponents of this theory are on the level of racist cretins. The last sentence is what people will usually remember and this quote is a bad way to have people leave the article. As the quotes come from pastors and apologists I suspect that is the point. Sophia ♫ 20:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC) No, Sophia. The point is that the CMT is an extraordinary, crazy claim. And, no, it's not pastors and apologists who make the claim, since Bart Ehrman is neither (he is an atheist/agnostic) - they are peer reviewed historians and biblical scholars, and the characterizations are thus supported by reliable sources and should not be suppressed because they ruffle the feathers of some people. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Brian's concern was with another quote that no longer appears in the article. I've also recently added another section to the article so the Powell quote isn't the last word. Eugene (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've finished the article and I can't see a section in which critique of specific Christ myth theorists or the reversal of Wells' stance would naturally go. That said I'm still not comfortable having criticism of the theory within the sections supporting the theory. There is no rebuttal by Christ myth proponents in the Scholarly reception sections. What I'm trying to say is that the article basically breaks down into a pro and con format. So keep the con out of the pro and vice versa. If there have been responses by the Christ myth proponents to the arguments raised by critics then that would be very good information to include in the article. I just saw that you put in some discussion, I'll take a look at that now. The best of luck to you! H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 17:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)