Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Christ myth theory/1

Threaded discussion

SlimVirgin is upset that she isn't getting her way with this article. Her listing here violates WP:POINT. Eugene (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That comment typifies the way Eugene has been approaching editors who disagree with him. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That comment typifies the way SlimVirgin has been addressing editors with whom she disagrees, although I must admit that she handles it better than the way Slrubenstein and Camelbinky have done so recently. At any rate, some of the editors on SV's side of the issue have yet to offer constructive suggestions on how best to improve the article. Just vague (and in some cases not so vague) assertions, which violate both WP:RS's (see the exchange between me, SV, and others here and in multiple violations of WP:Fringe (e.g., Identifying fringe theories, Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, Evaluating claims, Notability versus acceptance), in what appears to be an attempt to get rid of the entire article because her position, as revealed in her arguments, is untenable.

Furthermore, this is not about our (i.e., me, Eugene, and Ari's) "strong views against the theory". This is about what virtually all mainstream scholars have said over and over again. SV, it seems (and those on her side perhaps? Other than Sophia, that is, from what Sophia has said in the past), want this article to read as if it just a simple, legitimate minority position when it clearly and demonstrably isn't - and that's not just my opinion; it's the opinion of virtually every mainstream scholar. I, at the suggestion of Akhilleus, withdraw my desire to include That-Which-Will-Not-Be-Named (see everyone? I'm willing to compromise). However, what I will NOT concede is that this theory is WP:Fringe - which is something that I think Sophia, who is on the other side of this issue, and others, would agree with. So, let's go back to discussing how to best improve the article rather than trying to dismantle it with baseless accusations of maliciousness. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• (copied from main page) Comment There are numerous issues with this article. Some are detailed here. Anthony (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Then let's discuss them in an orderly manner. Both of us (as well as some others) have agreed to do this, for which I commend you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• (copied from main page) Comment I have edited on this article on and off for several years and there is always disagreement on the talk page as you would guess. Recently however the talk page has become toxic and the disparaging comments in the article have ramped up massively, with Eugene leading a mission to write a "debunking" of the CMT. The theory is minor with an interesting history and some current popular support. It should be possible to illustrate its lack of academic acceptance without "skinhead", "flat-earth" and "moon landing hoax" insults. How this ever became a GA I don't understand. Sophia ♫ 09:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What you, me, Eugene, or anyone else thinks about the validity of the CMT is irrelevant. You know that it is fringe (not simply "minor"), and have said so in the past, because that is what virtually all (something like 99.99%) of mainstream scholarship has concluded. I have withdrawn my desire to compare the CMT to That-Which-Will-Not-Be-Named (see above), but to describe it as a somewhat legitimate theory among the vast majority of scholars will require evidence - which is something that I challenge you to do. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• (copied from main page) Comment I agree with SV, this article is biased and should be delisted. Sole Soul (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it's biased? Please be specific. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is many examples at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christ myth theory/archive2. Sole Soul (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to be specific, but you linked to a long thread. Try again. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• (copied from main page) Further comment I have had to fully protect the page again today due to the issues mentioned above. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be for a month. There are a lot of issues to work out and, the way I see it, as we come up with a consensus, then we can simply ask you to make the modification. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• (copied from main page) Delist. As I noted elsewhere on this page, the article fails NPOV by focusing too heavily on religious authors, who were educated from early age to believe Jesus existed. Also, the article's title and key concept is CMT, but I have yet to see a clear and non-confusing definition. When I asked the article's editors below to please define it for me, I got two widely disparate responses. And when I asked them to categorize a list of simple statements, trying to find where the bright line between pro- and anti-CMT position falls, I was told it was "silly" to try to classify the statements, as it's like trying to decide "who is fat." I also feel that this article is a POV fork from the Historicity of Jesus, and should be merged into that article. Crum375 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's simply 'not true. Both Akhilleus and I explicitly agree that the CMT is the belief that no historical Jesus existed.[1] Eugene (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here are the two opinions I got from two of the main contributors, of who would qualify as "mythicist":

• "anyone who thinks that the balance of probability favors the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth qualifies as a mythicist."[2]
• "If someone were to say that they were fairly, but not absolutely, convinced that there were no historical Jesus, and they were notable for such a position, that person might well be called a 'mythicist'."[3]

Crum375 (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Those opinions don't differ significantly. The basic way to see whether someone is a supporter of the CMT, of course, is to see whether they say they are, or whether secondary sources say they are. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the two opinions differ quite a bit. The first tells me that I need to have about 50% doubt ("balance of probability") in the historicity to qualify as "pro-CMT", while the second tells me I need about 80-90% doubt ("fairly, but not absolutely") in the historicity to qualify. Since other sources imply that even a slight doubt (10%?) would qualify, it boils down to a fuzz-factor in the definition of the pro-CMT position covering virtually any open-minded historicity researcher on this planet. When I asked the main contributors to help me narrow this down, I was told to "read the sources". Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• (copied from main page) Delist. Indeed there are major POV problems with the article, as well as sourcing concerns, and WP:RS issues. The article is not at GA quality status at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you could indicate your specific concerns relevant to neutrality and sourcing it would help us sort them out. Eugene (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(copied from above) Comment I believe this article is biased and fails to meet WP:NPOV. Looking at the anti-myth sources, they seem heavily weighted in favor of theologians and seminarians, who are trained from early childhood to believe unquestioningly that Jesus existed. To expect such biased sources to objectively and scientifically consider whether his existence was a myth, derived from other religions and myths, considered by them as heresies, defies common sense and cannot be seen as neutral or scientific. I think the article should be sourced primarily to professional historians, who have no dog in the race. Crum375 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You can have whatever prejudices you like, but they will not trump reliable sources. And if you really think that mainstream scholars are biased, you will have to provide attestation from other scholars, because your personal opinion, quite frankly, is meaningless without them. Can't do it? No, I didn't think you could. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say the sources did not meet WP:RS, so that's a strawman argument. The issue here is the source selection, which by relying mostly on sources who have been trained from childhood to religiously and unquestionably believe in the existence of Jesus, violates WP:NPOV and defies logic. Basing the Obama article primarily on Republican sources would fail NPOV, and we don't need to provide "attestation from other scholars" to prove it. NPOV is all about perception of fairness and neutrality, and it is based on editorial common sense and consensus. Crum375 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad analogy. First, these are peer reviewed, respected scholars, which includes atheists/agnostics among them. Second, this is not about the theological conclusions of such scholars (i.e., that Jesus is or is not God, savior, messiah, died for our sins, yada, yada, yada). This is about historical conclusions (that a real person simply existed) based on historical methodology used by respectable scholars. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, NPOV is all about perception of neutrality, similar to when a judge needs to be recused, even when we trust and respect him in general. In this case, checking the anti-myth sources, the list seems to be loaded with divinity students, seminarians and theologians, and very short on plain historians. I am assuming, based on their personal history, that most of these people are devout Christians, who have been trained from childhood to believe in the existence of Jesus. Yes, he had divine qualities, but was also born to Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem. To expect such people to objectively analyze the possibility that their entire belief system is based on a myth, defies common sense and flies in the face of neutrality. That they are "respectable scholars" means not much, given that many of their peers come from the same cookie cutter environment. Crum375 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Christian bias aside, where does the article cite "divinity students"? Eugene (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No anti-Christian bias, only a clear common sense perception that you can't expect a devout Christian to objectively analyze and decide whether his entire belief system is based on a myth. And by "divinity students" I referred to people who studied divinity, as opposed to history, or other non-religious tracks. Crum375 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So when you say "students", what you really mean is tenured professors holding endowed chairs at fully accreditted PhD granting institutions of higher learning? Interesting word choice. Eugene (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I believe most scholars and scientists consider themselves to be "students" of their chosen profession till they die, regardless of how many tenured professorships they hold. Crum375 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what you are saying now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not saying that Christian scholars are not reliable and can't be trusted - rather, what you are saying is that in order to avoid the perception of non-neutrality, you would like to have non-Christian scholars also quoted in the article (i.e., used as sources). Is that correct? If so, how many non-Christian scholars do you think would it take to avoid the perception of NPOV? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

See my MM analogy below. I would say that we should base the article primarily on the views of professional historians, or other scientists with no dog in the fight. We should include the views of a couple of prominent theologians, to voice their opposing views. I don't think we should go by raw numbers, but by common sense. Most weight should go to professional historians, and some to the religious followers. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the article is based on sources with impeccable credentials. The views of theologians are irrelevant, unless they have other knowledge/training pertaining to the issue, of course. Keep in mind that the issue, and the article, have NOTHING to do with the theology and/or the truthfulness of Jesus' claims (as found in the Gospels). This article is ONLY about the historicity of a mere man. Therefore, how are we to determine the reliable sources to use? This is a question that I've put up for discussion on the CMT talk page and I cordially invite you to participate there.

At any rate, the article has passed GA requirements which, to me, means only that it was subject to a spell and clarity check - it does NOT mean that what it declares is true and should be taken as "Gospel".  :) Consequently, this page is really subordinate to the CMT talk page and, therefore, should be addressed in the appropriate area. Once again, please join us on the CMT talk page to continue the discussion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• "the article is based on sources with impeccable credentials...The views of theologians are irrelevant...This article is ONLY about the historicity of a mere man": The theologians, who are mostly religious followers, have been trained from early age to accept unquestioningly that a man called Jesus, who was also the Son of God, was born in Bethlehem to Joseph and Mary. To expect these followers to objectively assess the possibility that their entire belief system is based on a myth, stretches common sense to its breaking point, and destroys the perception of neutrality in source selection.
• "the article has passed GA": It means that it also passed some reviewer's perception of NPOV compliance. The venue to disagree with that assessment is here, not on the article talk page.

Crum375 (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that highly trained atheist/agnostic scholars agree with highly trained Christian scholars? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If there are prominent atheist/agnostic historians who are anti-CMT, they are hard to find in the article. It seems the vast majority of the "debunkers" in the article are theologians or otherwise people who were brought up to believe Jesus existed. Crum375 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Another comment Here is another, hopefully more apt analogy to explain why the sourcing of this article is perceived as so problematic. Imagine we had some papers published by a prominent historian, arguing that the prophet Muhammad was a pure myth, and that there never lived such a man. (Let's ignore the fact that that author would be in hiding. :)) And let's assume we had a Wikipedia article about this "MM". Imagine that nearly all the anti-MM sources selected for the article were prominent Muslim theologians and Qur'an scholars, all ridiculing the MM, with scarcely any general historians among them. Would editors here consider such sourcing selection NPOV? Crum375 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If these are your concerns then I'm glad to set the record straight a little. Your analogy isn't really apt since there is no "prominent historian" who is currently promoting the Christ myth theory: the advocates are mostly amatuers and the most recent academic advocate was a professor of German language. Also, the page currently cites a substantial number of non-Christians: Alan F. Segal, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Will Durant (he gets a large in-line quote), Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, James Frazer, and so on. Eugene (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take on these:

• Will Durant: Was trained from childhood by Jesuits to believe Jesus existed
• Bart Ehrman: Theologian with PhD in divinity
• Alan F. Segal: Probably OK
• James Frazer: Probably OK
• Michael Grant: Probably OK

What I would do to improve the perception of NPOV is reduce the number of sources for CMT debunking by people who have been trained from childhood by their religious upbringing to believe Jesus existed, and try to rely almost exclusively on the ones with no perceived bias. The point is to make an average skeptical reader say: "Oh, it's debunked by non-Christian scholars, so that carries some weight." Crum375 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me! Will Durant abandons Christianity (and theism altogether) and wins the Pulitzer Prize for his history writting, but we shouldn't quote him because he went to Catholic school? I don't see how this is a defensible position. As for Ehrman, his PhD isn't in "divinity", it's in New Testament literature. You keep repeating that Christians have been essentially programmed to be unable to question the existence of Jesus; the very fact that the CMT advocates Robert M. Price and Tom Harpur used to be a Christians reveals that this is nonsense. Would you say that people raised in strongly and explicitly atheistic families shouldn't be quoted in the Wikipedia articles on the existence of God since such people were "trained from childhood" to believe God didn't exist? Eugene (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me address Durant first. He was educated by Jesuits in St. Peter's Preparatory School and then Saint Peter's College. You could argue until the cows come home that all this religious education, which doubtlessly emphasized the existence of Jesus daily, had no effect on his later life. But the point again is perception. If a judge is asked to work a case involving someone he had conflict with years ago, he'd likely recuse, and the reason is not that he thinks he can't be fair, but that he wants there to be a perception of fairness. This is why I say that we should focus on the sources which best make the case, i.e those which have no perceived bias. Regarding sources who were raised and educated in a strong atheistic school system, if there are such, they too should be "recused" (as anti-CMT). But I doubt that someone brought up without religion (i.e. not in an anti-religion environment), would be perceived as unfair. Crum375 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me address your point about "there is no 'prominent historian' who is currently promoting the Christ myth theory". First, CMT is not well defined in the article. If it excludes the possibility that JoN may have existed as a man in some way, possibly well removed from any description in the Gospels, I would think virtually nobody rational would support it, since there is absolutely no scientific way to prove that somebody by that name did not exist around that time in that area. Therefore, nobody in his right mind, let alone a prominent historian, would support this extreme "straw man" version of the CMT. If, on the other hand, CMT means that JoN possibly existed, but did not perform miracles and was not the Son of God, probably most non-Christians historians could support it. So logically, there is very little real-estate left for "prominent historians" to debunk anything. What do we expect them to say? The Christian ones would say, yes there is ample evidence for a JoN, the non-Christians would say we can't exclude the possibility. I can't imagine any prominent non-Christian historian working too hard to prove there was no shred of evidence JoN existed in some form, as it would be a fairly useless exercise which would only alienate his Christian colleagues. Crum375 (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is the CMT "not well defined in the article"? The lead says this: "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory and nonexistence hypothesis) is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure, and that the Jesus of early Christianity was the personification of an ideal savior to whom a number of stories were later attached." Later, there's an entire section labeled "Background and definition" which says this: "Philosopher George Walsh writes that early Christianity can be regarded as originating as a myth later dressed up as history, or with an historical being who was later mythologized. The theory that it began as a myth is known as the Christ myth theory; the second as the historical Jesus theory." How could this be made clearer? Eugene (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As a reader who wants to know about the historicity of Jesus, i.e. his reality as a man with historical records outside of religious writings, you are faced with two main choices: Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. If you go to the former, it tells you that the latter is about "the belief that Jesus did not exist." So this may be your introduction to CMT as a reader, a belief that JoN did not exist. But who could actually "believe" that? Perhaps a member of some other religion, whose creed is to deny Jesus's existence? Certainly not a modern scientist, since those are never supposed to "believe" anything, only follow the trail of evidence. The CMT article itself starts with "The Christ myth theory ... is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure, and that the Jesus of early Christianity was the personification of an ideal savior to whom a number of stories were later attached." It is way too rigid, as defined, to the point of being a straw man. And it's unclear what is really being "argued". It seems to me, in fact, that this entire article is a straw man article. It takes an apparently extreme position (although it's never quite clear how extreme), and shows that nobody serious can accept that extreme view. I think this article should really be part of the historicity article, which should cover the gamut of views by historians, which would extend from those who consider everything about JoN to be a complete myth, to those who accept every NT detail as historical "gospel". But the direct answer to the question is that it is unclear to me, hence to any reader, what exact views would fall into CMT, and how extreme they would have to be to qualify. Crum375 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This critque about the definition has been raised over and over but I've never understood it. The RSes used to define the topic, both in the article itself and in the FAQ, are unambiguous and from highly respectable academics. Here are a few:

• William Horbury, University of Oxford: "Defense of Biblical criticism was not helped by the revival at this time of the 'Christ-Myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare." ("The New Testament", in Ernest Nicholson, A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 55)
• John T. Townsend, Harvard University: "Zindler depends on secondary works and writes with the aim of proving the Christ-Myth theory, namely, the theory that the Jesus of history never existed." ("Christianity in Rabbinic Literature", in Isaac Kalimi & Peter J. Haas, Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity, New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006, p. 150)
• Maurice Goguel, the Sorbonne: "Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder." ("Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118)
• Alan Richardson, University of Nottingham: "The Christ-Myth theory (that Jesus never lived) had a certain vogue at the beginning of this century but is not supported by contemporary scholarship. (The Political Christ, London: SCM, 1973, p. 113)
• Hugo A. Meynell, University of Calgary: "If this account of the matter is correct, one can also see why it is that the 'Christ-myth' theory, to the effect that there was no historical Jesus at all, has seemed so plausible to many..." (An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (2nd ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991, p. 166)

Help me to understand how, given these sources, the CMT article defining the topic as a denial of the existence of Jesus is an "extreme 'straw man'". Eugene (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try. As I noted above, if CMT means a complete denial that any man called Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth, regardless of his life's history, it would be irrational, since there is no scientific way to absolutely prove it either way. On the other hand, if CMT includes the possibility that such a man by that name could have existed around that time and place, but the descriptions in the Gospels could be inaccurate or wrong, almost any objective non-Christian would accept it. So what is it? Reading the article doesn't tell the reader where CMT sits relative to these extremes. And when we say that historians widely reject it, what exactly do they reject? Crum375 (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get more clarity into the article indicating that the CMT is the extremist denialist position. Just as an aside, since you note that the CMT, once properly defined, is "irrational", would you then support its categorization as pseudoscholarship? There's an RfC open now on that point. Eugene (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of a single source which supports an "extreme denialist position". This would be a claim that it is absolutely impossible that a man named Jesus lived in Nazareth or thereabout around the start of the first millennium, regardless of other details. All the pro-CMT sources I have seen take a more nuanced approach, allowing the possibility that a real man by that name could have existed, but not with the details and events spelled out in the Gospels. The point is that there is no clear definition in the article of what CMT really is, or where its boundaries are, so "debunking" it, or calling it pseudoscience or pseudo anything is meaningless. Crum375 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To me mythicists argue that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. But they also argue there is a lot of evidence that the stories and sayings attributed to Jesus were extant in other myths/religions in the region at the time. From here it is easy to argue that Jesus did not exist in any meaingful way; that there is no core to the onion. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there doesn't appear to be any meaningful, commonly accepted definition of the concept that I can see. If different people use the term CMT to mean different things, which can vary quite widely, what does it mean to "debunk" it? Crum375 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, it would help if you reply to my concern above, which has been unanswered for several days. Crum375 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Terribly sorry Crum375; I had thought your question was rhetorical. First, I'd quibble with the word "debunk". A few people have accused me and others of trying to write a "debunking article" and I've never accepted that. I want to help write the article in such a way that mainstream historical and biblical research (i.e. research produced by tenured professors teaching at fully accredited University and so on) is given a clear and unambiguous voice. If such a voice "debunks" the theory, then so be it, but I've no intention of playing fast and loose with the sources or anything to achieve that as the final outcome.

With that said, the Christ myth theory has a very clear definition: the contention that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all. The article's FAQ includes quotations from serious academics and even sympathizers which agree on this. Now, after this point of initial agreement, there is some diversity: some mythicists think Jesus was like a painting, just creatively produced from scratch one day by a single person, say Paul, or Peter, or someone else, who wanted a Jewish version of a pagan God like Osiris; other mythicists think that Jesus was more like a collage of little shreds of photos of other totally unrelated people: Greek philosophers, Roman cynics, rabbis, etc; other mythicists, at least in the past, thought that Jesus was just a symbolic archetype of the underclass that God would one day vindicate. There's quite a bit of diversity as to what "Jesus" was, but when it comes to what he wasn't, the mythicists are united: he wasn't a flesh and blood person kicking around Palestine in the 1st century--even if you exclude all the miraculous stuff. Eugene (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Eugene, but I simply don't understand what you are saying. You say, "[CMT] has a very clear definition: the contention that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all...the mythicists are united: he wasn't a flesh and blood person kicking around Palestine in the 1st century." To me these are completely meaningless words that I can't parse. Does this mean someone rational claims there was absolutely no person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth around the beginning of the first century? If so, how do they know, and how can they prove it to such certainty? It sounds on the surface like a straw man argument; can you please explain to me why it isn't? Crum375 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375: Yes, there are people who have claimed that there was no historical Jesus. Eugene listed several quotes talking about this idea above. One example of someone who thought he had proved that there was no historical Jesus is Bruno Bauer; others are discussed in the Christ myth theory article. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time understanding why you're having a difficult time understanding, Crum375. I suppose that the best explanation of why what I've said isn't a strawman of the Christ myth theory is that the theory's most notable advocates have actually denied the existence of Jesus (e.g. the unsavory Bruno Bauer, the vastly more unsavory Arthur Drews, and the early G. A. Wells). You've said that such a position is "irrational"; I agree, and so does the historical mainstream--which is why a number of authors have called the theory pseudoscholarship and compared it to a variety of very embarrassing denialist theories.

"A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."

N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48

You've said that such a position would only serve to antagonize one's Christian colleagues; again I agree, and a number of reliable sources indicate that this possibility was precisely what motivated a number of its supporters.

"Wells and others advanced the non-existence hypothesis not for objective scholarly reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form."

Robert E. Van Voorst, "Nonexistence Hypothesis" in Leslie Houlden Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003) p. 660

I don't know how I can make it any clearer; sure, the Christ myth theory is irrational and provacative--but people say irrational and provacative things all the time. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, in the list above, or anywhere else, is there one author who says that he is absolutely convinced there was no man called Jesus in the town of Nazareth during the early first century? If so, please name and quote that author. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the sources say there was no single man who can be traced as the originator or inspiration for Chritianity, and no historical person who resembles the character "Jesus" described in the Gospels. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any CMT proponent who actually says there is absolutely no possibility that a man called Jesus existed in Nazareth around that time, leaving other details aside? Crum375 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would there be any proponent OR opponent of the CMT that would say such a thing? What I mean is that, when dealing with ancient history, there is nothing that is 100% or 0%, with very few exceptions. No scholar, on either side of the argument, would make such a claim. The CMT, however, is almost universally rejected and ridiculed by modern scholars. Consequently, this opposition and ridicule should be represented in the article, right? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I think everyone would acknowledge that it's possible that there might have been many guys named Jesus in or around Nazareth in the early first century; it was a reasonably common name. However, the CMT is not the contention that there were no men named Jesus in 1st century Nazareth; it's the contention that a particular Jesus, whom mainstream scholarship regards as the historical figure at the origin of the NT figure of Jesus, did not actually exist. If I were to claim that there was no actual Mark Anthony, but that he was entirely made up by ancient Romans, the existence of a Marcus Antonius who spent his whole life quietly doing nothing in Rhodes would mean nothing for my theory—that would be an entirely different Mark Anthony that the one whose existence I was denying. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So are we all in agreement that there is no reliable source which claims there is absolutely no possibility that a man called Jesus existed in Nazareth in the early first century? In that case, by simple logic, all pro-CMT sources would agree that, as a minimum, a man called Jesus could have actually existed in Nazareth around that time, although not with the same details as those described by the Gospels. Can we agree on this point too? Crum375 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. What do you mean by "not with the same details as those described by the Gospels"? And could you explain why you think it's important to establish whether these authors allowed that there might be somebody named Jesus? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it "maybe", or "yes"? The reason is simple. If all of us can agree that all pro-CMT sources accept that it's possible there was in fact a man called Jesus who lived in Nazareth in the early first century, it would be a good starting point for trying to classify the different pro-CMT sources. But I'd like to be sure nobody here still thinks there is some "extremist" pro-CMT source who absolutely denies the possibility that any man by that name could have existed then and there. Crum375 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. But I don't understand why you want to do this. We have a lot of scholarly sources about the CMT; some are quoted above. What we need to do is base the definition of the theory upon them, rather than creating an original classification of pro-CMT sources. As for the question you're asking, it doesn't seem to be something the pro-CMT sources concern themselves with; they are interested in denying the existence of a specific guy named Jesus—the one discussed in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see it this way at all. As I see it, all pro-CMT sources accept that a man called Jesus could have existed in Nazareth in the early first century. While they may differ in the details, not one of them claims that there couldn't have been such a man there and then. So the differences between these authors would be more nuanced, e.g. in how many details they accept could match those spelled out in the Gospels. In other words, the acceptance of the "historicity" of Jesus, as described in the Gospels (ignoring the miraculous or super-human elements), is a matter of degree. Some would say, yes, such a man could have existed, and could have been a kernel around which the Gospels were written, but his personal details were far removed from the Gospel model, which was mostly a made-up myth. Others would say he could have been a Jewish preacher, with some followers and influence, and other similarities to the biblical JoN, who ended up being embellished into the Gospels version of Jesus. Others could say although there could have been such a man, it's more likely the Gospels version of Jesus was derived from other religions or traditions of that era, and was unrelated to any specific individual. The important point is that there is no "extreme denialist" position: all agree that a man by that name could have existed, at that place and time, but they differ on the details and how closely they resemble the Gospels version. Can we agree on this point? Crum375 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way you're framing this. The CMT, as our sources tell us, is the denial of the historicity of Jesus—that is, the theory says that the Gospels are not based upon the life of a historical human being named Jesus, from Nazareth, living in the early 1st century, whose activities gave rise to the early Christian community. That guy (the theory says) never lived. Early Christianity arose in some other fashion, and the Christians created the figure of Jesus in the NT from pre-existing mythical material (some CMT proponents also say that the lives of some historical individuals—but not Jesus of Nazareth—provided inspiration for the NT accounts).

As for people who "would say he could have been a Jewish preacher, with some followers and influence, and other similarities to the biblical JoN, who ended up being embellished into the Gospels version of Jesus"—well, that sounds an awful lot like mainstream scholarship to me. Like the scholarship covered in this article, and many others. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that all pro-CMT authors, without exception, accept that a man called Jesus could have existed in that time and place, then clearly they only differ in the amount of details, i.e the degree of matching to the biblical JoN. Some would say he was very close to the biblical version, some would say he was very far. If you look at the entire "historicity" spectrum, of both pro- and anti- CMT authors, where is the bright line which makes you join the pro-CMT group? There is clearly no "extreme denialist" position, since nobody is denying the possibility that such a man existed, though perhaps far removed from the specific biblical details. Crum375 (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said above, this is NOT about 100% or 0% certainty, or, as you phrased it, "that a man called Jesus could have existed in Nazareth in the early first century". That's NOT the issue in the CMT article. It is about the EXTREME unlikeliness that the man spoken about in 1st century documents (which includes Jewish/Christian as well as pagan sources) didn't exist as an historical person in the same way that all of us Wiki editors exist as historical persons. Such a position is not only denied by mainstream scholars, it is ridiculed, as even those on the CMT proponent side of the equation acknowledge.

Personally, I don't care about the claims of Jesus' divinity, miraculous works, etc. My contention, which is supported by virtually all scholars, is that a particular man responsible for the rise of Christianity simply existed in an historical sense. More to the point, the CMT article is NOT about whether JoN could have existed in an historical sense that I just mentioned - rather, it is about that he didn't.......and what mainstream scholars think about that incredibly fringe proposition - which is to treat it with utmost of contempt. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not following. You say (rebolded), "...the CMT article is NOT about whether JoN could have existed in an historical sense that I just mentioned - rather, it is about that he didn't." But that's exactly my point. At this point I am not aware of any author who claims with absolute certainty that a man called Jesus didn't exist in that approximate place and time. All authors allow that possibility, with varying levels of resemblance between this hypothetical Jesus to the biblical JoN. So what makes an author part of the pro-CMT club vs. middle-of-the-road historicity club? I just don't see any bright line here, and all the bolds, underlines, and capitalized shouts, don't make me see it any clearer. Crum375 (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, I'm confused as to why you're confused. The bright line distinction between the CMT and middle-of-the-road historicity is that the CMT says there was no historical Jesus. You keep asking whether any author thinks with absolute certainty that there was no man called Jesus that existed in that place and time; but this is not the question that CMT proponents and the sources who write about them are dealing with. Mainstream scholarship finds a particular person named Jesus behind the NT stories—not Jesus of Bethlehem, Jesus the shoemaker from Cana, Jesus the fisher from the Dead Sea, but one particular Jesus—Jesus of Nazareth. The CMT, on the other hand, says there was no Jesus of Nazareth, and if a CMT advocate allows that there was some dude named Jesus who sold carpets in the marketplace of Jerusalem in the early 1st century, that doesn't change the fact that they're saying that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist. And there are definitely people who say that there was no historical Jesus, and the Gospel stories are made up—Bruno Bauer and Arthur Drews have already been mentioned, another example can be found in The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, CNN review here. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you seem to take a black and white, all or none approach to the historicity of JoN. Again, I don't see a single solitary author who denies the possibility that there could have been a man called Jesus around that place and time. So it boils down to the degree of resemblance. Are there any authors who deny the possibility that that man was a preacher, vs. a carpet seller? And assuming he was a preacher, it is possible to assume that his stories were later embellished into the Gospels versions? As far as I know, all authors bar none accept that there could have been such a man, though the degree of probable resemblance between this man and the biblical JoN vary among the authors. You seem to ignore the fact that what we have here is a very gradual slope: from those who believe any resemblance between the biblical JoN to a living breathing person is a mere coincidence (though it cannot be excluded), to those who believe that every biblical detail can be perfectly matched to a historical figure. Most authors likely fall in between these extremes, but none of them would reject the mere possibility that a man called Jesus existed in Nazareth at that time and place, and could have, at least indirectly, given rise to the JoN of Christianity. I just fail to see any bright line distinction where historicity stops and "CMT" advocacy begins. Crum375 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Crum375, when Alan Richardson says "The Christ-Myth theory (that Jesus never lived) had a certain vogue at the beginning of this century but is not supported by contemporary scholarship," what do you think he means? That seems like a good bright line to me: if you think Jesus never lived, you're a proponent of the CMT. Also, in constructing your spectrum, you seem to be ignoring the option chosen by CMT proponents: there is no historical figure at the origin of Christianity, and the Gospel stories are completely myth. --Akhilleus (talk)

What Richardson likely means, and I am guessing since you asked me, is that in his opinion there is high likelihood that the biblical JoN was based on a real man. This just puts him higher on the historicity slope than others. As far as your suggested bright line, I don't see how it could work, because I think we all agree here that nobody, not a single rational author, absolutely denies the possibility that a man called Jesus lived at that time and place, and as I see it, the main variable along the "historicity" spectrum is how similar the hypothetical Jesus is to the biblical one. As far as my "ignoring the option", I am not. Any historian who is not absolutely certain there was a real living person who gave rise to the biblical Jesus, could logically assume that the latter was based on a myth. I don't see how this has anything to do with the gradation of viewpoints that I mentioned above, which is also the bottom line: there is no clear demarcation (that I can see) of where being "pro-CMT" begins and "historicity" stops. Crum375 (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that you are ignoring something: there are many sources that define the CMT as the idea that there was no historical Jesus, and sources that make that very argument. Richardson is saying that the Christ-myth theory is the idea that Jesus never lived. What do you think this means, but that there's someone who says that Jesus never lived? As, indeed, Arthur Drews once said? [4] That's across the bright line I just mentioned: Drews thought Jesus never lived. That's a clear demarcation between the CMT and historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, Crum375, a few posts above, you write "none of them would reject the mere possibility that a man called Jesus existed in Nazareth at that time and place, and could have, at least indirectly, given rise to the JoN of Christianity." CMT advocates reject the mainstream position that Jesus of Nazareth gave rise to Christianity. They construct accounts of Christianity's origins that leave no place for a historical founder. So, yes, they are rejecting the possibility of a man named Jesus indirectly giving rise to Christianity. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article "What is a Mythicist" that may be of some interest here. ^^James^^ (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, James. Yes, your source is good because it makes a clear and rational definition of "mythicists" as "people who doubted the historical veracity of the Judeo-Christian Bible," or the more modern definition of "scholars, researchers and others who investigate whether or not the New Testament character of Jesus Christ was a real, historical person or a myth along the lines of the gods, godmen and heroes of other cultures." So as I see it, this definition would include as "mythicist" anyone who is open minded: i.e. not absolutely convinced that the details of JoN, as spelled out in the NT, completely match those of a real person who lived in that region at the beginning of the first century. In other words, to join this "club", all you need is to have at least some doubt that the man Jesus, as described in the NT, existed as a historical figure. I think this definition would include quite a few authors, even those who feel that JoN very likely did exist as a historical figure, because by not being absolutely convinced, they are entertaining at least some doubt, i.e. they are "mythicists". Thus as I see it, the easiest way to grade the various "historicity of JoN" authors would be by how much doubt they have: from no doubts whatsoever that he existed, to many serious doubts. But again I see no bright line where mythicists begin and "historicists" end: it all boils down to the degree of doubt they have. Crum375 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article James provides does not qualify as a reliable source. Stellar House Publishing is a wholely-owned self-publishing pet-project of D. M. Murdock, a non-academic without advanced education in the field. As such, this essay cannot be meaningfully set in opposition to books published through mainstream academics presses by professors at Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, and so on who clearly define the Christ myth theory as the denial of the existence of Jesus. Crum375, you've asked for primary sources from CMT advocates explictly denying the historical Jesus. Even though Wikipedia articles are to be guided by reliable secondary sources (and not primary documents), I'm happy to oblige:

• "The 'historical' Jesus is not earlier but later than Paul; and as such he has always existed merely as an idea, as a pious fiction in the minds of members of the community."

Arthur Drews, The Christ Myth (Prometheus reprint edition, 1998) p. 286

• "Now we are in a position to go further than Bultmann and conclude they [i.e. the gospels] can tell us nothing at all about an historical Jesus because no such man ever existed."

Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006) 70-71

• "As for 'the absurd belief that Jesus never existed,' this is not a presupposition either, but—rightly or wrongly—an arrived-at position through an examination of the record and the spirit of the times, as put forward in my first book, The Jesus Puzzle..."

Earl Doherty, "REVIEWS on AMAZON.COM of Challenging the Verdict", Age of Reason Publications

There we go. Also, if I might presume to speak for the other editors defending the defintion provided by the reliable seciondary sources, no one is claiming that an author must by absolutely sure that JoN never existed to be considered a CMT advocate because that's not how historical research works. Historical conclusions are always probablistic in nature. So the line is not absolute certainy the JoN never existed, it's the belief that his non-existence is more likely than not. Eugene (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict 2x) That is a faulty reading, Crum375. The page that ^^James^^ linked to is by Acharya S, who believes that Jesus was non-historical. You seem to have only read the first two sentences of the article: 'The terms "mythicism" and "mythicist" may be new to many people, even though they have been around for a couple of centuries. "Mythicist" was first coined in German and English to describe people who doubted the historical veracity of the Judeo-Christian Bible.' But there's more to the paragraph:

The word is used these days particularly to define scholars, researchers and others who investigate whether or not the New Testament character of Jesus Christ was a real, historical person or a myth along the lines of the gods, godmen and heroes of other cultures, such as Hercules, Mithra or Horus. Therefore, the word "mythicist" has come into greater currency of late, because of the increasing popularity of one of its main foci: To wit, the evident non-historicity of Jesus Christ.

(Italics mine.) According to Acharya S the current meaning of "mythicist" (in regard to Jesus, anyway) is a person who investigates whether Jesus was "a real historical person or a myth". Mythicists focus on "the evident non-historicity of Jesus Christ." There's that bright line again; if you think Jesus was non-historical, you're in the CMT "club", as you put it, or you're a "mythicist." There's an ongoing, and basic, contrast between history and mythology here: if a character is mythological, s/he isn't historical. Not much farther into the article, Acharya S gives another definition of the term "mythicist":

As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures.

(Italics mine.) Again, Acharya S makes a diametric opposition between mythological figures and historical figures; if Joshua, Solomon, and Jesus are mythological figures, that means they aren't historical. The article then has a quasi-dictionary entry for the term "mythicist":

myth-i-cist [mith-uh-sist]

–noun

a person who views various figures of antiquity, including both pagan gods and major biblical characters, as mythical.

(emphasis and formatting as in the original.) And Crum375, let me say once more that mainstream scholarship doubts the historical veracity of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Most portraits of the historical Jesus leave out the miracles, etc. as theological (or "mythical") elaboration upon the deeds of a mortal man. But I doubt that Acharya S would say that, for example, Bart Ehrman was a "mythicist". As long as we're citing websites, why don't we look at the blog of the scholar April DeConick here, where she says, "The same can be said about the myther position, the position that says that Jesus was not an historical person, but a mythic construct of the ancient people." Just like Acharya S, DeConick defines the position as one that says there was no historical Jesus, but only a mythological construct. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the crux of the issue is the definition of "mythicist". According to Acharya S, the current meaning of "mythicist" (in regard to Jesus) is someone "who investigates whether Jesus was a real historical person or a myth". This to me would include virtually any historian studying that topic, because any historian (or scientist) who is so convinced of anything beyond any shred of a doubt, is not a real historian (or scientist). So where is the "bright line" between "mythicist" and "Jesus-historicity author/researcher"? At the moment, none of the sources above make that distinction clear to me. If I just take as example your last mention of DeConick, you say he "defines the position as one that says there was no historical Jesus, but only a mythological construct." The problem with that is that it's unclear how convinced such a person must be to qualify. If you say, "I am fairly convinced (but not absolutely) that, based on the evidence, there was no historical Jesus, but only a mythological construct," would you qualify as mythicist? What if you said, "I think there is good reason to doubt the historicity," would you still qualify? What if you said, "I think there is some room for doubt about the historicity", would you qualify? What if you said, "I think there is good evidence for historicity, but I am not absolutely convinced", are you a mythicist? The point is, I doubt there is a single rational scientist on this planet who would say "I am absolutely convinced there was no person named Jesus who was even remotely connected with the biblical version." Which means that virtually everybody falls into some gradation of how much doubt, if any, they have about the historicity. Therefore, there is no clear demarcation that I can see of who is "pro-CMT" and who is not. Crum375 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You've avoided my clarification. Absolute certainty isn't normally a part of historical reconstructions, rather, it's the balance of probability that matters. Given that, anyone who thinks that the balance of probability favors the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth qualifies as a mythicist. Also, again, Murdock's essay isn't a reliable source so it can't be used to define the article. And why do you keep mentioning scientists in this context? This is a historical matter and so it's the opinions of historians that count. Eugene (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, Freke/Gandy aren't scientists (or even historians), but they write: "Now we are in a position to go further than Bultmann and conclude they [i.e. the gospels] can tell us nothing at all about an historical Jesus because no such man ever existed." So they "conclude" that "no such man ever existed"; this sounds like someone saying they're convinced that there was no person named Jesus connected with the biblical character. Same for Doherty—he's arrived at 'the absurd belief that Jesus never existed,' through "an examination of the record and the spirit of the times." They're saying that there's no historical Jesus, without expressing doubt or probability. We shouldn't factor any in, unless they make it clear that they're making a probabilistic argument.

If someone were to say that they were fairly, but not absolutely, convinced that there were no historical Jesus, and they were notable for such a position, that person might well be called a "mythicist". I believe that Robert M. Price usually says that he believes the CMT is more likely than not, and he is usually understood as a mythicist. But as we've seen, there are people who say, without qualification, that there was no historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting to note that the two messages above, one from Eugene and one from Akhilleus, seem to diverge quite a bit. According to Eugene, just above, "anyone who thinks that the balance of probability favors the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth qualifies as a mythicist." That's actually quite a reasonable definition, except where would those who think the odds are roughly equal be? pro-CMT or anti-CMT? As for Akhilleus, he seems to say that to qualify as pro-CMT, you'd need to have significantly more doubts in the historicity than the myth position. I quote, "If someone were to say that they were fairly, but not absolutely, convinced that there were no historical Jesus, and they were notable for such a position, that person might well be called a 'mythicist'." So to use some arbitrary numbers, it seems to me that Eugene is saying that you need about 50% doubt in the historicity to qualify as a mythicist, while Akhilleus is saying you need some 80-90% ("fairly, but no absolutely"). In my own opinion, if I rely on Acharya S's definition ("scholars, researchers and others who investigate whether or not (JoN) was a real, historical person or a myth"), it would seem that any doubt in the historicity, 10% or even less, would qualify. So we have a wide range here, covering virtually the entire historicity probability spectrum, from 10% to 90%, just from the editors here. Obviously we need reliable sources to nail down these numbers, and I am not sure how to do that, given that there is such a wide discrepancy even between two people here who have carefully read all the sources and are apparently on the same "side", plus Acharya S's definition. So we are back to square one: What is the definition of being "pro-CMT"? What exactly do you need to believe to qualify? And if we can't nail that definition down, how can we "debunk" or criticize it? Crum375 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another aspect to consider is that most people accept that the gospel Jesus is part myth to some degree. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, Crum375, I don't think this is the right way to go about things. You want to get together a list of criteria, and see who fits into it. But what we need to do is see what secondary sources say about this topic—secondary sources like William Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950, Ch. 2. They tell us that there is an identifiable group of writers who are advocates of the Christ myth theory—Charles François Dupuis and Constantin-François Volney in the late 18th century, Bruno Bauer in the 19th, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in the early 20th century, G. A. Wells in the late 20th. This isn't an exhaustive list, but these are people who show up most often in secondary sources discussing the CMT. That's how you decide who belongs—you base it not on your own definition of who's a "mythicist", but on who actually gets called one.

Also, you are exaggerating any difference between my post and Eugene's. I'm pointing out that there are people who say, without qualification, without expressing doubt or probability, that there was no historical Jesus. These people are clearly "mythicists." One other thing—if you're going to use a definition from Acharya S (and I agree that this isn't a reliable source), you should use her dictionary-style definition: "a person who views various figures of antiquity, including both pagan gods and major biblical characters, as mythical." --Akhilleus (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I posted the Acharya S article because I thought it would add to the discussion here, not to suggest that it be used as a source for the article. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been helpful, so thanks for posting it. I just don't understand how one can read it, though, and come away with the idea that a "mythicist" is one who is unsure about the proposition that Jesus is an ahistorical myth, since the entire article makes it clear that Acharya S thinks that there was no historical Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Akhilleus, you say that I "want to get together a list of criteria, and see who fits into it. But what we need to do is see what secondary sources say about this topic...They tell us that there is an identifiable group of writers who are advocates of the Christ myth theory." The problem I have with that approach is that I like to tackle issues in a logical manner. The CMT is clearly very contentious, with the various sides ridiculing and disparaging each other, so we need to tread very slowly and carefully. It seems to me that the very first step that is needed is to define the CMT concept in a way that is acceptable to everyone, based on the reliable sources. Only when this step is accomplished can we accept sources supporting or criticizing CMT, because if we don't agree on what CMT is, then what we write will be meaningless shadow boxing. You say that I exaggerate the difference between you and Eugene (even though I quoted your own words), and that Acharya is not a reliable source. Reading Acharya's wiki article, I don't see anything obvious there which would convince me she and her publishers don't meet WP's reliable source requirement — bear in mind that alleged "bias" is not a consideration for WP:RS (though it is for WP:NPOV). Has this issue been reviewed on the WP:RSN board? And can you and Eugene please present a clear and concise unified version of the CMT definition (that you both agree on, based on sources), which would allow a reader to classify any given author's views as either pro-CMT or anti-CMT? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've said it many times on this very page, Crum375: if a given author says that there was no historical Jesus, they're pro-CMT. It's as simple as that. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What if they say:

• "I suspect there was no historical Jesus"
• "I am fairly convinced there was a historical Jesus, but not completely"
• "I am fairly convinced there was no historical Jesus, but not completely"
• "I am virtually convinced there was a historical Jesus, but not completely"
• "I am virtually convinced there was no historical Jesus"
• "I am virtually convinced there was a historical Jesus"
• "I am virtually convinced there was no historical Jesus, but not completely"
• "I think it's possible there was a historical Jesus, but also possible that there wasn't"
• "I think it's likely there was a historical Jesus"
• "I think it's unlikely there was a historical Jesus"
• "I am convinced that, based on all the evidence, there was no historical Jesus"
• "I am convinced that, based on all the evidence, there was a historical Jesus"
• "I am open minded about whether there was a historical Jesus, and not sure either way"

These will do for starters. Would you mind marking each one for me as either pro- or anti- CMT? Hopefully this will give a feel of where you see the "bright line". Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. The CMT has a very clear definition based on a lot of very reliable sources: the denial of a historical Jesus. That determining if any given person qualifes may be tricky isn't a failing of the definition, it's part of the unavoidable ambiguity of life. The same problem applies to all sorts of issues:how socialist does a country need to be to be called a socialist state? Is France? Is Sweden? How fat does a person have to be to be a fat person? Thirty lbs. overweight, a hundred lbs.? I could go on and on. In certain cases the identification may be a little ambiguous (like with Price or the later G. A. WElls with reference to the CMT) but those issues can be discussed on the article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it "silly", Eugene? If you understand where the bright line sits, shouldn't it be easy for you to simply mark each of these as "pro" or "anti" CMT? If you can't, it raises doubts as to whether there is any well-defined criterion for categorizing these views. Crum375 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's silly for the reasons I just mentioned. Imagine your last comment directed at another article: Green. "If you understand where the bright line sits, shouldn't it be easy for you to simply mark each of these colors (turquoise, chartreuse, etc.) as "green" or "not-green"? If you can't, it raises doubts as to whether there is any well-defined criterion for categorizing these colors." So quick, lets label green's definition "a straw man" and yank it's GA status.Eugene (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, if CMT so hard to categorize, it seems to me that "debunking" it is meaningless. I also think that with all these nuances, which are so hard to categorize, the article should be part of Historicity of Jesus, since there is no clear demarcation of what belongs here vs. there. Crum375 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Were the article to be merged, the non-existence position would be supressed into non-existence (ha!) on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Eugene (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Except the "absolute non-existence" position is an absurd straw man argument, made by opponents. The reality seems to be that all positions are nuanced, ranging from high to low probability of historicity. All these belong on the Historicity article. Crum375 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, the following statement has already been quoted several times, but I'll do it again: ""Now we are in a position to go further than Bultmann and conclude they [i.e. the gospels] can tell us nothing at all about an historical Jesus because no such man ever existed." (Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom, pp. 70-71) Can you point out the nuance in this statement? Because this looks like a good example of the "absolute non-existence" position.

Also, when scholarly sources characterize Arthur Drews as "the most notorious spokesman for the deniers of Jesus' historicity" (William Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the twentieth century, 1900-1950, p. 49), what rationale is there for a Wikipedia editor to decide that this is a straw man position? Why does the opinion of a Wikipedia editor trump this reliable source? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me address your points. You quote, "Now we are in a position to go further than Bultmann and conclude [the gospels] can tell us nothing at all about an historical Jesus because no such man ever existed." You seem to imply that as you understand it, this particular position is an "extreme denialist" without nuance. But by writing (bold added) "such man never existed", as I understand it, the writer is telling us that a man essentially matching the biblical details (i.e. "such man") of JoN never existed, in his opinion. But he is not excluding the possibility, at least not here, of a man who was quite different, though perhaps with the same name, time and location, perhaps even a preacher, who could have been a kernel around which the JoN story was created. So, yes, no "such man", but possibly a somewhat different man, subsequently embellished into the biblical version. That's certainly a lot of "nuance", and in my view the words "such man" imply that nuance. Regarding the Weaver quote, you have a professor of religion and co-editor of "Faith and Scholarship" proclaiming on "Trinity Press" that some author who thinks JoN may not have existed as "the most notorious spokesman for the deniers of Jesus' historicity." So someone who was very likely born and raised believing Jesus existed, who spent his entire career devoted to his faith which reveres Jesus, calls someone who raises doubts about this belief "notorious denier". That's roughly as surprising as a "dog bites man" story. And where do we see a reliable source telling us that Drews (or anyone else on this planet) is absolutely convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a man called Jesus didn't live in Nazareth in the early part of the first century? It seems to me that you are trying to paint anyone who has doubts about the historicity of Jesus as an irrational extremist, with no room for any nuance. I have yet to see any reliable source, which is not a religious author defending his faith, supporting this straw man view. Crum375 (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for addressing my points directly, but I'm afraid I don't find your response convincing. First of all, in the Freke/Gandy quote, "no such man ever existed" clearly refers back to "an historical Jesus"; what they are saying is that no historical Jesus existed. Your hair-splitting argument is contradictory, for a "man who was quite different, though perhaps with the same name, time and location, perhaps even a preacher, who could have been a kernel around which the JoN story was created" is a guy named Jesus, from Nazareth, living in the 1st century, perhaps preaching, who might have been a kernel of the NT stories—that's the historical Jesus! That's exactly the guy whom Freke/Gandy say didn't exist.

As for your comments on Weaver, I'm afraid I can't read this as anything but your acknowledgement that reliable sources do indeed say that Drews denied Jesus' historicity, but you're not going to believe them because you think they're biased Christians. I'm not sure how Wikipedia's content policies support this, nor do I see how this is a legitimate ground for delisting. Weaver's book is, by any reasonable standard, a reliable source; we shouldn't toss out what he says because a Wikipedia editor disagrees with it. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, you say "that's the historical Jesus! That's exactly the guy whom Freke/Gandy say didn't exist." As I noted above, my understanding in reading the quote is that "such man" refers to someone essentially matching the biblical description. Which logically means that a man called Jesus, who lived in that time and place, but who differed in many other details from the biblical version would not be excluded as a possibility. That's exactly where the nuance comes in — you seem to want to paint everyone with a doubt as an "extreme denialist", even if the sources don't support it, as here. Regarding Weaver, I never said he's not a WP:RS; WP has a wide latitude for RS, and specifically does not exclude "biased" sources. But the issue here is not RS, it's WP:NPOV, which as I noted elsewhere on this page, requires a neutral presentation. That an author who was raised and educated to believe Jesus existed ridicules or disparages someone who has doubts about this existence, doesn't add much useful information. It's not an issue of a Wikipedian disagreeing with this POV, it's the fact that it's not a neutral source, like using a Republican commentator to describe Obama's character or beliefs. Crum375 (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, your understanding of the Freke/Gandy quote is incorrect. I'm starting to think that if I provide you with a quote of someone saying "I believe there's no historical Jesus" you're going to find a way to explain it away. So let's see what you think about Michael Martin, The Case against Christianity, p. 37:

For example, in 1850 Bruno Bauer, a German theologian and historian, denied the historicity of Jesus. At the turn of this century there was a fierce debate on the subject. John M. Robertson, the ablest critic of Jesus' historicity writing at the time, wrote several books on the subject. In the last thirty years, Guy Fau, Prosper Alfaric, W. B. Smith, John Allegro, and G. A. Wells have all denied the historicity of Jesus.

Please note that Martin believes a strong case against Jesus' historicity can be constructed. So I will allow that Martin doesn't deny that Jesus was historical; instead, he thinks it's very likely that there wasn't a historical Jesus. For me, this means that he could appear in the Christ myth theory as a supporter of the theory. But, the important point here is that he is sympathetic to the CMT and says, in a very straightforward way, that Drews, etc. denied the historicity of Jesus.

As for your argument that Weaver is an RS but you think he's not "neutral"; you're shifting the ground here. You've been saying that Weaver is setting up a straw man argument; this implies that you think he's absolutely inadmissible for defining the theory and commenting upon it. Now you seem to be saying that he can be used as a source, but only alongside other viewpoints. Fine. What other viewpoints do you think need to be represented? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your point about Martin, I am not sure what you are trying to say. If he allows that there is doubt about the historicity of Jesus, does that mean he is a "mythicist"? My problem is that I have yet to hear a consistent definition of what a mythicist is, since as I noted above, it seems to include almost anyone who has some doubt, although Eugene above said that an author would need over 50% doubt ("the balance of probability favors the non-historicity") to qualify as a mythicist. Regarding Weaver, I never said he makes a straw man argument, only the editors here seem to make it, so I am really not following your point(s) about him. Crum375 (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I'm saying, Crum375: Martin says, in an unambiguous way, that Bruno Bauer denied the historicity of Jesus. Martin is a source sympathetic to the theory, so there should be no accusation that he is biased against the theory, and he attributes the "extreme denialist position" to a number of authors, including Bauer, John M. Robertson and G.A. Wells. So, let's agree with Martin that these authors thought there was no historical Jesus, and that this is not a "straw man" description of their argument, but what they actually thought.

As for Weaver, it's nice that you're not saying he makes a straw man argument. Because he gives us a good definition of the topic of the Christ myth theory article: it's about authors who deny that there was a historical Jesus. As Weaver says, Drews, W. B. Smith, and John M. Robertson denied that there was a historical Jesus; there's some overlap with whom Martin says denied Jesus' historicity. So we can see that Weaver, no matter what you think about his neutrality, characterizes the position of Drews, Smith, and Robertson in the same way as other sources. If you think there's a problem with NPOV here, then who disagrees with Weaver's description, which is not that different than Martin's? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the main problem I have here, and unfortunately you are not helping me, is that I don't see a non-vague, non-confusing, clear definition for CMT. You say above that CMT is "authors who deny that there was a historical Jesus." The problem with that is that it's way too vague. What does it mean to "deny"? How much doubt in the historicity do you need to have to "deny"? Does it include authors who express some doubt in it? Does it include authors who have even the tiniest doubt in it? If it's the latter, it seems to me it would include any historicity researcher whatsoever who keeps an open mind about the subject. But the bottom line is that CMT is not well defined, and criticism of an ill-defined position, which varies between extremes, is meaningless. Crum375 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, if you're confused, I recommend reading the secondary sources. If you haven't done that, I'm afraid I have a hard time accepting your argument that the definition is vague and confusing, because throughout this discussion I have echoed the wording of secondary sources. I already linked to the relevant chapter of Weaver's book; other good sources include Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus, available in full on Google Books, see chapters 22-23 here; also Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament, Ch. 1, starting at the heading "Did Jesus really exist?" on p. 6, here. Now, given the things you've said in this discussion, I wonder if you're going to reject these sources because you think they've been indoctrinated since birth to unquestioningly believe in Jesus' existence. If you're tempted to say that, please realize that I think that's absurd, and absolutely irrelevant to whether we should use these sources on Wikipedia, because each of the sources I just named are mainstream scholarly sources.

And frankly, if you're confused about the meaning of the word "deny", there's not much I can do to help you. I've already explained what it means to deny that there was a historical Jesus—it means to say that this guy never lived. That's a clear enough explanation for our secondary sources, and that should mean it's clear enough for a Wikipedia article. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, perhaps my problem is that I come from a scientific background, where the word "deny" is rarely, if ever, used professionally. I understand it in terms of being accused of a crime — "I deny stealing the last cookie from the jar! — but I don't understand its meaning for "denying" a theory or hypothesis. I have simply never heard a respectable scientist "deny" — or "believe" for that matter — any theory. Scientists, or researchers, follow the trail of evidence. It may be overwhelming, or it may be scant and contradictory, but they never "deny" or "believe" a theory. So if I see a source alleging that some person "denies" a theory, or "denies" anything, it sounds suspiciously like a religious statement by some inquisition board: "Do you deny you have blasphemed the name of our Holy Leader?". But the point is that if you Akhilleus do understand what the term CMT means, using the word "deny" or not, you should be able to easily classify the list of sample statements I made above, as pro-CMT or anti-CMT. If you can't do that, I don't see how anyone, regardless of background, can possibly understand what we mean by CMT. Just tossing undefined or ill-defined words around does not help; our goal here is to educate the reader, not to present vague accusations made by one source against another. Crum375 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, I'm not interested in answering hypotheticals. I'm interesting in writing an article about an actual idea, forwarded by actual people. That's why I suggest to you that you should read the sources that I named, because these sources cover the history of the idea that there was no historical Jesus. If you're acting like a scientist, I suppose I'm acting like a historian; rather than making theories about the world and seeing whether the evidence fits it or not, I'm looking at empirical evidence, including the conclusions that scholars have already drawn about this theory, and trying to report them. If an actual writer on the historicity of Jesus has uttered one of the statements you list above, the way to find out whether they are an advocate of the CMT is to see whether they say they're an advocate, or whether a secondary source has. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Our goal as Wikipedians is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources have said about a topic. But if we mention a topic, such as CMT, our first goal should be to clarify to the reader exactly what it means, not send them to follow sources to find out the meaning. In this case I, as a reader, cannot understand the meaning of CMT. It is unclear to me if someone who merely has slight doubts about historicity is "pro-CMT" or "CMT advocate", or whether one needs to have serious doubts about the historicity to qualify as such. As I see it, this uncertainty in the definition covers virtually the entire range of authors. Therefore, if we leave the meaning of the key concept of the article, and its title, so vague that it could cover every historian or researcher in the world, then any criticism of this concept becomes senseless. Sending me or the reader to follow links or read sources to understand what we are talking about is not the solution; we need to nail down exactly what is meant by this concept, not by using vague and confusing terminology, but using exact criteria, so that any reader can take my above list and categorize it in a couple of minutes. The fact that you are reluctant or unable to do so, tells me this is an undefined or ill-defined concept, and an article about it is meaningless until the concept becomes better defined. Crum375 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, my description is clear, and it follows the usage of secondary sources. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Like you said, our goal is to summarize what reliable sources have said. They haven't made anything even resembling your list, as far as I've seen, nor do they exhibit anything close to your level of confusion what it means to deny that there was a historical Jesus. I have to conclude that this is your own, idiosyncratic difficulty, and to focus on it would be straying from what reliable sources do.

What's more, I have explained in some detail what it means to say that there's no historical Jesus, and frankly, I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding why you're having trouble with the explanation. So, if you can't look over my posts and glean from them what it means to say there was no historical Jesus, repeating myself isn't going to help. I'm advising you to look at secondary sources because they might be able to help you where I can't. And who knows, maybe you'll see things in those sources that I haven't. On the other hand, if you're not going to look at those sources, I'm afraid I'll have to question your interest in nailing down "exactly what is meant by this concept," and wonder whether your participation in this conversation was driven by a desire to improve the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the issue is very simple. If as you say, CMT is well defined, and the reliable sources make the definition very clear and straightforward, then why can't you tell me how much doubt in the historicity of Jesus a researcher needs to have in order to qualify as pro-CMT? Does he need to: a) just slightly doubt it? b) somewhat doubt it? c) mostly doubt it? or d) completely reject the possibility? If you can't answer this simple question, how can we expect a casual reader to understand what we mean by a pro-CMT author? Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because, Crum375, what a casual reader needs to understand is that the CMT is the idea that there was no historical Jesus. How do you figure out whether someone is pro-CMT? Well, if they say there was no historical Jesus, then they are. That's simple, right? By this criterion, there are many many authors who are pro-CMT, and they're covered in detail at Christ myth theory: Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, W. B. Smith, Arthur Wells, and others. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you say that if someone says, "there was no historical Jesus," they are pro-CMT. But what if they say, "I have some doubts as to whether there was a historical Jesus", or "I am unsure if there was", or "I think there was, but I am not absolutely convinced", or "I am uncertain if there was", etc? In other words, your definition would only work if someone used your exact words. But it doesn't tell us their mindset, or how much doubt one needs to have about the historicity of Jesus to be pro-CMT. For example, if they have only a slight doubt about the historicity, are they pro-CMT or anti-CMT? Hopefully you can see that unless we can answer these very crucial questions, the meaning of "pro-CMT" and therefore that entire article, is very much up in the air. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a mindreader, Crum375, and fortunately I don't have to be one to write a Wikipedia article. So I'm not that interested in someone's "mindset", except insofar as it's expressed in their writing and as it's covered by secondary sources. In other words, I'd like to deal with the evidence that I have, rather than trying to answer hypothetical questions. Since those secondary sources tell me that the CMT is the view that there was no historical Jesus, and the secondary sources name quite a few notable advocates of that idea, I don't think the article is up in the air at all. Since you don't seem to have read these secondary sources, and apparently have no intention to, I don't see what point there is in continuing this conversation. If, however, you really want to improve the article, and you don't find my explanations of the definition helpful, the only thing I can recommend is that you read about the topic yourself (not from unreliable websites, but from scholarly sources) and see what you think. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I am not asking you to read anybody's mind. As a GAR reviewer at this point, I am trying to think like a reader of this article, and not an editor. My initial goal is to understand what is meant by someone being described "pro-CMT". The article's verbiage seems unclear to me, so I turn to the main contributors to help me understand what this means. When I asked "How much doubt in the historicity of Jesus does one need to have to qualify as 'pro-CMT'", at one point I got two divergent answers (over 50% and 80-90%), and when I tried to get this apparent discrepancy clarified, nobody has been willing or able to do so. Even the simple question, "Would having just a small doubt about the historicity qualify one as pro-CMT?" has not been answered. So the bottom line, again, is that if there is no well-defined concept, it is meaningless to discuss its criticism or debunking, or even to have an article about it. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

"The Christ myth theory is the argument that there was no historical Jesus" is a well-defined statement. You'll notice it doesn't use percentages, and I haven't used any in my posts; so please stop attributing them to me. I don't think it even makes any sense to say things like "I am 64.59 percent sure that so-and-so did not exist" (I suppose I'll let this guy say it, though). You don't quantify doubt, you qualify it, by saying that you have "some" or "a lot" of doubt about something. In this particular case, however, this question is irrelevant, because our secondary sources define the theory as one which says there was no historical Jesus. Not one which doubts that there was a historical Jesus, or wonders whether he existed; one which says he didn't exist. We have sources who say that there was no historical Jesus, and secondary sources who treat this as a notable view; all we have to do is report this. Questions about whether Arthur Drews was 37.84 percent, 48.92 percent, or 78.99 percent sure there was no historical Jesus can be left for someone else to answer. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Akhilleus, but you are not following my point and my questions. Yes, I know that you think that "The Christ myth theory is the argument that there was no historical Jesus" is well-defined. But it isn't well-defined for me, because this article is supposed to be a historical article, which is based on science, and in science there is rarely, if ever an unqualified "yes" or "no", but only probabilities. So if there is no contemporaneous evidence from Jesus's lifetime, and there is later evidence that appears to support his existence, as a scientist you can accept that evidence for historicity as excellent (99%+), weak (10%-), equivocal (50%), or whatever. The flat statement "there was no historical Jesus" is not scientific, since it doesn't really tell us anything specific, and no respectable researcher or historian would ever make it. When I try to read this article, I see it's apparently a historical article, and I expect it to meet scientific standards. And in science the flat phrase "there was no historical Jesus" is so vague as to be meaningless. I am sure there are lots of sources discussing this issue, and we can always say "source X said Y" and I'd have no problem with that, in principle. But for us to say "sources widely criticize position X", when X is undefined, is unacceptable, since it makes no sense to criticize an undefined or ill-defined point of view. Crum375 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree completely with Akhilleus. As for Murdock, her stuff is self-published so it doesn't qualify as a RS. Stellar House is just the name she gives to her self-publishing work. Eugene (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Murdock appears marginal as RS. But her Mythicism article is still an interesting read. Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, is your concern that the definition is to narrow or too vague? Here is a definition that I find much more helpful: Christ myth theory asserts that the emergence of Christianity is best explained without reference to any historical teacher or leader. We can state this in terms of conditional probability to make it precise:

• Let M denote the statement that Jesus originated as a purely mythical personage to whom biographical elements were later ascribed.
• Let H be the assertion that Jesus was a historical person with layers of myths later attached.
• Let C be an assertion that describes all relevant facts about early Christian writings and ancient history.

You are a myth-theorist if you think P(C|M) > P(C|H). Does this way of thinking make more sense to you? (And Akhilleus/Eugene are naturally welcome to shoot if this is not equivalent to their interpretation of the definition in the article.) Vesal (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that I have yet to see a consistent definition, vague or narrow. Your definition above seems to match one of Eugene's replies ("balance of probability"), that a pro-CMT author feels that there is greater likelihood of myth than historicity (i.e. >50% probability). But this conflicts with Akhilleus's reply that pro-CMT means you are "fairly, but not absolutely" convinced of non-historicity (i.e. >80-90% probability). There are also other definitions which seem to require the author to have any kind of doubt in the historicity to qualify as pro-CMT.[5] So it seems to me that the definition is vague or broad enough to possibly cover all historicity researchers. And if the definition is unclear, and could possibly include every open-minded person on Earth, it can't logically be "widely criticized" or ridiculed. Crum375 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think you are implying a false disagreement between Akhilleus and I regarding the definition. Both Akhilleus and I absolutely agree that the Christ myth theory is the contention that Jesus never existed. Akhilleus says that a specific individual should be included in the article (or not) based on whether they appear in secondary literature discussing the Christ myth theory. I completely agree. In fact, that's the consensus of the editors working on the page. Likewise, Akhilleus says that in matters like this one qualifies doubt rather than quantifies it. Again, I agree. My comment about the "balance of probability" is just a different way of saying the same thing: a CMT advocate is one who's overall impression regarding the historicity of Jesus is negative, whether that negative evaluation is strong or weak is less important than that one falls on the negative side of the issue. Vesals heuristic is essentially the same, it just represents a more rigorous formalization of the same idea. I don't think that this conversation is really helping anything, so that's it for me. Eugene (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, if there is a clear consensus somewhere on the definition of what CMT means, and specifically how much doubt in the historicity of Jesus a researcher needs to have to be considered "pro-CMT", please point me to it. Also, you say above, "a specific individual should be included in the article (or not) based on whether they appear in secondary literature discussing the Christ myth theory." I find this criterion very confusing. So if someone mentions my name in an article discussing the CMT, I am automatically pro-myth? What if the article says that I have just a slight doubt in the historicity? In fact, this is the one question which nobody here seems willing or able to answer: if I have a slight doubt in the historicity, am I pro-CMT? Crum375 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Crum, the critical point, though, is that you really want to focus on whether a person thinks the evidence is best explained by some specific mainstream account or some specific mythicist account. Not just whether on balance they find it more likely Jesus existed or not, but which historical theory do they support? I also can't parse the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth never existed", and how to quantify the certainty there, but when I think of this as alternative theories on how belief in Christ emerged, it is clear whether someone defends this theory or one of the mainstream accounts. In printed academia, there are few fence-sitters; and in this debate, none. Vesal (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that if we have an article about CMT, and classify authors into proponents and opponents, we need to first have a clear-cut definition of what CMT actually is. At this point in time, despite asking for it numerous times, I have yet to receive an answer to a simple question: if an author has doubt in the historicity of Jesus, is he pro-CMT? Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: If and only if this author is presenting such doubts as a historical theory on the origin of Christianity. Following Walsh, we have two choices in explaining how early Christian came to believe in the mythical figure of Christ: from Jesus to Christ or from Christ to Jesus. This is a binary choice, so you should have no problem deciding which scholars go into this article. One may of course wonder whether it makes sense to have one article on the historical Jesus that covers such a broad array of views, and limit this one to the fringe, but right now I want to know if you agree the distribution is consistently defined, not whether it is sensible. Vesal (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't see a "binary choice" if someone expresses slight doubt, for example, in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Would he be pro-CMT or not? Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't see a binary choice according to the current definitions, or you don't this question in principle can't be seen as a binary choice? In other words, do you disagree that one could formulate this article such that it would be about that binary choice, rather than the probability one assigns to the statement "Jesus existed"? Vesal (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we could or should make up our own definition, as that would violate WP:NOR. If the reliable sources already have a consensus on what constitutes support of the CMT position, then we could use it, in principle. But at the moment, despite numerous requests, I have yet to see any clear definition of that. The simple question, "if one has doubt in the historicity of Jesus, is he pro-CMT?" remains unanswered, and hence the article itself hinges on an undefined or ill-defined concept. Crum375 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources that define this and there is some nuance, so there is a bit of freedom in selecting a formulation that is more clear to you. Anyway, the answer to your question is that such a person does not belong in the article. This article is about proponents of a specific family of theories, and you can recognize whether a theory is a myth theory based on the dichotomy (Jesus to Christ versus Christ to Jesus). If you are a proponent of such a theory, you are a myth-theorist; if you merely have doubts about Jesus' existence, you are not a participant of this debate. You have argue either for or against some specific position to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, right? Vesal (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vesal, you say, "if you merely have doubts about Jesus' existence, you are not a participant of this debate." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if a researcher has doubts about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the NT, he would not be considered pro-CMT. Is this correct, and do others here agree with this view? Crum375 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to confirm, a scholar expressing doubts in the existence of Jesus is not something you can use to decide if a person is a myth-theorist. Look, I'm only trying to explain how I personally came to make sense of why secondary sources identify these scholars as proponents of myth theory, while for example Thomas L. Thompson is not seen as being part of this line of argument. I thought shifting the emphasis of the definition from "Jesus did not exist", which I find more ambiguous, to something based on Walsh's dichotomy would make things more clear. But it seems this way of thinking does not help. Vesal (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson

Do Eugene and Akhilleus, and the reliable sources, agree that Thomas L. Thompson is not "pro-CMT"? Crum375 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Thompson is not "pro-CMT". He draws a clear line between the historicity of Jesus (which he seems to conceed) and the historicity of the gospels (which he clearly denies). His position seems to be that the gospels are to Jesus what Shakespear's Julius Caeser was to the real Julius Caeser--fanciful accounts only indirectly connected to historical events and self-consciously so. I've also not seen Thompson discussed with any sort of regularity in the secondary literature as a mythicist. He's a minimalist, and per Goguel's article, such are to be strictly distinguished from mythicists.

"Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder."

Maurice Goguel "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2): 115–142

Eugene (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So an author who includes Jesus (along with others) in a chapter entitled "The myths of the sons of God", is not a mythicist? Can you understand why an outsider may become bewildered by this classification? Crum375 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not the only one confused by Thompson's titles and chapter headings. Even the Christ myth theorist Robert M. Price was frustrated by him: "Surely, one thinks, Thompson will dive into the debate over whether there is any evidence of synagogues in first-century Galilee, for example. One hopes for some substantial contribution to the Christ-myth debate. But one is disappointed." ([6]). As for your concerns regaring the definition of the CMT and the article's lack of specificity, would this graphic be helpful addition to the definition section?

The Christ myth theory is an alternative explanation of Christian origins to the historical Jesus. The Christ myth theory is to be distinguished even from biblical minimalism, with fundamentalism occupying the extreme maximalist pole of the historical Jesus spectrum.

Eugene (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, I am still very confused about the definition of CMT. Here we have Thomas L. Thompson, who puts Jesus in a chapter entitled "The myths of the sons of God." Robert M. Price, the reviewer you cite above, says about Thompson's work (bold added): "I gather Thompson is saying, a la Bruno Bauer, that someone in the Hellenistic period saw the need for a fictive ego-ideal/personal savior and invented Jesus to play that role."[7] So Thompson apparently considers Jesus of Nazareth to be a "myth", like other "mythical" sons of God in the same chapter, and according to Price, Thompson is saying that Jesus of Nazareth was an "invention" created to play the role of a "fictive savior". Yet, according to you, this is not a pro-CMT author, only a "minimalist", and therefore such an author (presumably) should not be included in an article about CMT. All I can say is that this "pro-CMT" classification does not make any sense to me as an outsider. Crum375 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Prof Thomas Thompson is an academic biblical historian. If you allow him in this article then the claim that everyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is a moron lacks credibility. Thompson actually considers the question unanswerable as you can never prove a negative, but he goes on to show that all the characteristics and acts of jesus can be found in earlier texts. Sophia ♫ 18:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Thompson consider Jesus a "myth" or not? Crum375 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Not in the sense that the Christ myth article uses the term. Thompson believes that Jesus existed. Eugene (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it seems to me that the article should explain very carefully to the reader why Thompson is not considered pro-CMT, despite putting Jesus in a chapter titled "Myths of sons of God", and despite, according to a reviewer of his book, saying that Jesus of Nazareth was an "invention" created to play the role of a "fictive savior". I think that making this distinction clear is vital to understanding the concept of "the Christ Myth Theory". Crum375 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) The Background and definition section is currently being expanded to do that very thing. Eugene (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd be interested in seeing it. Crum375 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Background_and_definition Eugene (talk)

Well, that text currently says about Thompson: "Thomas L. Thompson, concede[s] that Jesus did exist but argue[s] that virtually nothing can be known about him with certainty and that many (perhaps all) of the episodes in the gospels are legendary." That makes no mention of Thompson's book putting Jesus in a chapter called "Myths of the sons of God", and no mention that, according to a reviewer of that book, Thompson says that Jesus of Nazareth was an "invention" created to play the role of a "fictive savior". It seems to me that, at least in Thompson's case, there is a major disconnect between his book and his description in the article. Crum375 (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good so far. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint seems rathe odd, Crum. You're displeased that and article that isn't about Thompson doesn't go into great detail as to why it doesn't discuss Thompson? Are there any such articles that do such a thing? As for the "Myths of the sons of God" bit, having not read the book in question I don't think either of us are any position to pontificate on it. But even so, I note that a chapter entitled "Myths of the sons of God", if written by a non-Christian (and non-Shinto), could just as easily include discussions of Emperor Hirohito as Jesus; but that wouldn't mean that the author thought these men never existed at all. Eugene (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an issue of "displeasure". I'd like our articles to be accurate to the sources. And if we have a reliable source saying that Thompson says that Jesus of Nazareth was an "invention" created to play the role of a "fictive savior", it would seem odd to leave this crucial information out of a description of Thompson's views about the historicity of Jesus. Crum375 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem, we don't have a reliable source that says that. We have a personal blog article from the very fringey Robert Price in which Price eseenially guesses at what Thompson means. That won't cut it. Eugene (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, you are the one who gave me that source just above. And since Price is a published expert in the relevant field, according to the WP:SPS policy the book review article on his website is considered a reliable source, so reliability is not an issue. If you'd like, we can take this to WP:RSN and get more opinions on the reliability of this source. Crum375 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I came across this source which seems to classify Thompson on the "Ahistoricity" list. With a book title of "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David", I guess it's not hard to see why. Crum375 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And according to this book review (bold added), "Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed...the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity." Crum375 (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't link to Price's blog as a reliable source fit for inclusion in the article; I linked to it to show you that your puzzlement regarding Thompson's position is common.

In any event, WP:IRS states that "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... [and] are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." The policy further states that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". Robert Price's self-published blog article fails on both of these counts since his views are regarded as extremist and he's speaking about a third party who is living.

Richard Carrier's lecture handout fares no better--worse actually. As with Price's blog, Carrier's handout fails as a RS since he's widely seen as an extremist and his self-published handout is commenting on a living thrid party in this matter. On top of this though, WP:IRS prohibits the use of sources "with a poor reputation for checking the facts". Sadly, this is precisely the reputation Carrier has aquired in the field. As William Lane Craig once commented, "If Richard gives a reference to somebody, you better go check out that reference; you just can't rely on him to give you an objective trustworthy interpretation of the sources that he cites." Even the very handout in question here illustrates this problem: Carrier charmingly lists Arthur Drews as a "contemporary scholar", giving Drews' The Christ Myth's publication date as "1998"... but Drews has been dead for decades and The Christ Myth was actually first published in 1909/1910! Carrier's work thus fails to qualify as a RS on three separate counts.

Finally, the Amazon book review by who-knows-who is self-evidently not admissible as a reliable source.

The definition section currently includes a quote from Thompson in the footnotes which indicates why he's not part of the Christ myth theory club. Eugene (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a query on WP:RSN regarding the Amazon "product description". I may post queries about the others later on. Crum375 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Satisfied? Eugene (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I discovered that blurb is actually on the book itself, i.e. by the publisher. But I'll wait to get more reviews. Crum375 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I stepped away from this page because the "discussion" was depressingly circular. Now I look at it again to find that it's covering well-trodden ground. Thompson has been brought up a lot at Talk:Christ myth theory--see [8]. The latest thread is quicker reading than this page, and solves the problem. Rest assured that if Thompson himself says that he thinks there is no historical Jesus, or if a reliable source attributes this view to him, he belongs in the CMT article. But so far, I have seen no such source. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Thompson's publisher (bold added), "Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed." (p. iv, The Messiah myth: the Near Eastern roots of Jesus and David, by Thomas L. Thompson, Basic Books, 2005, search for those words in the Google preview, see also the Google Book Overview). This is consistent with Robert M. Price's review, where he says, "I gather Thompson is saying, a la Bruno Bauer, that someone in the Hellenistic period saw the need for a fictive ego-ideal/personal savior and invented Jesus to play that role."[9] We need to get more reviews, and more from the book itself, only a part of which is visible on the Google preview. Crum375 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to guess, then, that you didn't read the discussion I linked to. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did, and I saw some anonymous IP asking about this issue, with no reply that explains to me why an author's publisher is not a reliable source for a summary description of what the author is saying in the published book. Also, that thread ignores the Price review, which is reliable since per WP:SPS, an expert in the relevant field is considered a reliable source even when publishing his views on his private website. That the two review sources are consistent is also important. Crum375 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's nice that you read the discussion, but you don't seem to have picked up on the substance of the discussion there and in response to your query at WP:RSN--the publisher's description should not be used as a source for Wikipedia. You're right to observe that the thread I linked to ignores Price's review; I don't see that as a problem, since a review posted on Price's website doesn't count as a reliable source either. (If you disagree with me, a post to WP:RSN is in order, rather than an argument here; I doubt we'll get anywhere by ourselves.) In any case, your interpretation of the publisher's blurb and Price's review is off; the blurb does not say that Thompson denies the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus of the Gospels--i.e. he denies any link between the literary character of Jesus in the Gospels and a historical figure. Price says that he "gather[s] Thompson is saying" something, but he "could wish for a good bit more than hints from Thompson..." In other words, Price thinks this is what Thompson is saying, but he isn't sure. That's hardly decisive, and there are other internet reviews that state that Thompson isn't a mythicist. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that both Price and Thompson's publisher are reliable sources, which can be presented using in-text attribution. If there are other reliable sources reviewing Thompson's book who disagree, their views should be included too. It seems to me that if we have an important scholar who, according to one reliable source, says that "the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed" and according to another, appears to say "that someone in the Hellenistic period saw the need for a fictive ego-ideal/personal savior and invented Jesus to play that role", this is important and relevant to the issue of the possible non-historicty of Jesus. Leaving this information out of an article about the Jesus myth theory does not make sense to me. Crum375 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, this is already circular and repeating things that you've already said and that have been brought up in the threads I linked to. So, this is not very useful. Find a good review from a scholarly source (not Price) or a well-regarded magazine or similar that unambiguously says that Thompson believes there's no historical Jesus and I will write up a section for him right away. Until then, he belongs in biblical minimalism, but not in the CMT article, for reasons I have already explained several times. Please note that Thompson himself never says in the Messiah Myth that there was no historical Jesus, but simply says that his book is not about the historical Jesus, but about the effects of the literary tradition of the Near Eastern figure of the king upon biblical literature (including the Gospels). If he wanted to argue that there was no historical Jesus, it would have been easy for him to do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're personal feelings about the Amazon blurb aside, you already posted to the RSN regarding it and it was already rejected as a reliable source. Eugene (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My "personal feelings" are my opinions about the way WP policies should be applied here, given my over four years experience on this site. So please let's leave personal feelings and personalities aside, and focus on the issues. The RSN comments, which are from normal editors like you and me, included one saying that a publisher does qualify as a reliable source, so there was no clear rejection. And this is not an "Amazon blurb", it is the brief descriptive summary of the book the publisher published in the book itself. So to me it seems clear that these sources are reliable, and their views relevant and important for this article. At the moment, however, my focus is on the GAR process, and I think getting an RfC or another type of broad consensus on these issues belongs on the article's talk page. Crum375 (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's simply not true that of the RSN respondents one supported you. All respondents ultimately sided against calling the publisher's blurb a reliable source. Dlabtot, to whom I assume you're referring, ultimately said, "On second thought, after reading Michig's response below, no, the dust-jacket is just another form of advertising, so, not RS." And later, when you continued to press the issue, he told you, "Everyone who has responded to you disagrees." There absolutely is a "clear rejection". Eugene (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think many of them were confused, and commented (as you did just above) on "Amazon" not being a reliable source, not realizing that the source in question is the publisher of the book, published as a descriptive summary with the book itself. In any case, these are a few random editors, and we'd need much broader input, for example an RfC, to get this and other issues (such as the Price review) properly settled. And as I said, it doesn't make sense to do that here, because this is a GAR. So I'd wait until the GAR concludes and then address it on the article's talk page. Crum375 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-historical etc.

But I do think this article does merit coverage. Think of it like this: by the first century there clearly was belief in' a mythical Christ. There are two ways you can avoid explaining how it came to happen: The first is to say it happened because a man literally rose from the dead, and the second cop-out is to say because he was always a myth. Since there is an article on the first pseudo-historical approach, why not an article on this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by vesal (talk • contribs)

I don't like the term "pseudo-historical", or pseudo-anything. And my main concern in the CMT article is the basic definition, which is still unclear to me. When (or if) that's nailed down, we can move further. Crum375 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was a pointless and unnecessarily provocative POV statement. I thought I had deleted it, but it seems it was still in my edit window or something. Vesal (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources for CMT definition

As I have shown there are scholarly references that call into doubt the definition Akhilleus and Eugeneacurry want to use:

"Or, alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." Dodd, C.H. (1938) History and the Gospel under the heading "Christ Myth Theory" Manchester University Press pg 17

"The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory" Walsh, George (1998) "The Role of Religion in History", New Brunswick: Transaction, , p. 58 No WP:RS explanation of how the first part does not fall under Wells' current mythic Paul Jesus + Historical teacher = Gospel Jesus has been provided nor how Meed's 100 BC Jesus does not fit the second part.

"Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus..." (Price, Robert M 1999)

"This Galilean Jesus was not crucified, and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin. He may have been to some extent modelled on gods of pagan mystery religions who died and were resurrected, but he clearly owes much more to a particular early-Christian interpretation of Jewish Wisdom traditions." Wells, G.A. "A Reply to J. P. Holding's "Shattering" of My Views on Jesus and an Examination of the Early Pagan and Jewish References to Jesus" (2000)

"The year 1999 saw the publication of at least five books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book (The Jesus Myth) by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists." Doherty "JESUS — ONE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE CHRIST by Alvar Ellegard"

"G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference to Can we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover of Can we Trust the New Testament? 2002)

...the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain, no longer bothering to attempt refutations as their predecessors had thought necessary. But it still had lone torch bearers here and there. George A. Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians, 1971; Did Jesus Exist? 1975; The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1988; Who Was Jesus? 1989; The Jesus Legend', 1996; The Jesus Myth, 1999) championed the theory, adducing many new arguments and refuting numerous conventional objections." The pre-Nicene New Testament: fifty-four formative texts pg 1179. Please note that Price clearly lists The Jesus Myth as part of Wells' championing the Christ Myth Theory--the very book Voorst said "moved away from this hypothesis" and Wells himself states in "Can we trust the New Testament?" that he had stepped away from the Jesus is entirely mythical as early as The Jesus Legend and yet Price lists this book along with The Jesus Myth as part of Wells championing the Christ Myth Theory.

"In every volume Wells reiterates his case for a mythic Jesus, but this is hardly "vain repetition." [...] No, the chastened Wells admitted, there had indeed been a historical wisdom teacher named Jesus, some of whose sayings survive in the Gospels via Q. But this historical Jesus had nothing to do with the legendary savior Jesus whom Paul preached about." Price, Robert M (2005) ["Review of Can We Trust the New Testament?"]

The outline of the Christ Myth theory in Carpenter, S. C. (2009) "Christianity According to S. Luke [microform]" on pages 32-33 is just as confusing.

"the rise of Christianity in terms of the Christ-myth theory. This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods" Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1982) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034. Bromiley seems to have forgotten the Iliad and the Vinland Sagas which contain mythologizing of what were historical events. Now saying the story of a person is a piece of mythology is NOT the same as say the person themselves didn't exist. The stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Paul Reveres' famous ride via Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, or the umteen dime novels of various 19th century people like Jessie James, Wild Bill Hickok who undeniable existed cases in point. It certainly doesn't help that Bromiley jumps around like a jack rabbit telling us in the first paragraph of the related material about the Christ Myth theory, second tells us what it is (using story of), third line talks about the supposed parallels, and the fourth uses Apollonius of Tyana while using Lucian as an example of the general idea, and the final sentence gives us the examples of Attis, Adonis, Osiris and Mithras. NOWHERE in any of this are any of the greats (Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, etc) of the non historical concept mentioned.

Boyd, Gregory A. (2007 "Jesus Legend, The: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition" Baker Academic page 201 paints a very different definition of the "Christ-myth theory" form the Jesus didn't exist at all tack we have been seeing. Please note Boyd lists G A Wells with Bauer and Drew and cites "Jesus Myth" (1999) for GA Wells back on page 24 as setting what he later calls the "Christ-myth theory" is and Wells was accepting a historical Jesus in Jesus Myth per Voorst.

When we go to the actual use of the term "Christ Myth theory" what we get is a confusing and somewhat contradictory mishmash and the more I look the worst it gets.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)