Misplaced Pages

"Almost universal assent"

Could we or should we also make a note that at least his early followers genuinely believed that he had been risen from the dead? It's pretty universal in all the textbooks I've read, including Ehrman, Bartlet, etc.

23haveblue (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We can add a note that nearly all biblical scholars say so. CMT proponents deny it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Define "early followers" please? The Bible says Paul etc believed this, but apart from the Bible, who of the "early" followers wrote that they believed this? Please give references? Wdford (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That JC was risen from the dead was what the Apostles preached, and insisted on. So, I'm not really sure what your point is? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

CMT proponents also believe there were no apostles, as they must because any would-be apostle would know there was no JC if the CMT is true. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - not sure if you are kidding or just trying to be difficult, but the quotes of the early church fathers on the resurrection are overwhelming. I found dozens of websites that quote church fathers (Augustine, Didymus, Ambrose, Iraneus, Ignatius, etc, etc) on their belief in the resurrection. Many of their Wiki pages also quote them on their views of it. Here's the best pages I found - http://www.cogwriter.com/resurrection.htm and http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/church-fathers-and-resurrection.html). Hope that helps. Ckruschke (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I imagine he means the apostles. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what he means - assumed the Apostles were included in his "Paul etc" statement... Ckruschke (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

It is difficult to know what the early followers believed. The NT was written long afterwards. I would not consider Augustine an early follower. He converted in the year of our Lord 387. That would be like calling someone living today an early follower of the Pilgrim fathers. (2014-387=1627) TFD (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. My point here is as follows: The New Testament speaks confidently of the resurrection, but the gospels were not written by the apostles whose names they bear, the gospels contradict each other on the core details of the nativity, passion, resurrection and ascension, some of the letters of the NT are known to be fake, Paul never knew Jesus and Paul's teachings are known to have disagreed with the Jerusalem disciples who had known Jesus personally. The claims of the NT are thus on thin ice. Add to this also the fact that many other gospels – some of which disagreed profoundly with the canonical texts – were discarded by the canon-editors and suppressed.

Then comes a long break, of multiple generations, until the early “Church Fathers” whom you name. These men would certainly not have seen Jesus or his disciples in person, and were acting on anecdotal evidence. During that multi-generational interval the early Christian believers lived in very close proximity to the adherents of the other “mythological” resurrecting gods of the day, whose beliefs include close parallels with the Christian teachings. We have no way of knowing how much myth was added to the tales of Jesus to "compete" with the rival religions of the day, but we see for example a story of the dead arising and going into town, which story is not recorded in all the gospels, never mind secular sources of the time. Add to this also the fact that other “Fathers” disagreed with aspects of the orthodox canon, and were suppressed as heretics as a result.

Consequently, the beliefs of the “contemporaries of Jesus” are unknown to us other than through the NT, whose reliability is deeply suspect on such issues. The “early followers”, being those who lived dozens of decades later, did not have reliable evidence on which to base their beliefs, and thus acted on (and helped to compose) the NT stories that were then in circulation - which stories had been mythologized to an unknown extent in the interim. Wdford (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You say "to an unknown extent." We cannot know to what extent the story was true or made up. TFD (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

True, certainly. However we do know that certain details are doubtful, because the gospels contradict each other. I'm not talking about where Gospel A says Matthew had cheese and tomato on his sandwich but Gospel B only says he had cheese. I'm talking about where Gospel A says an angel told Joseph to flee to Egypt to escape the murderous King Herod, but Gospel B says they went to the Temple in Jerusalem and presented Jesus to God in the temple - virtually right under Herod's balcony. Luke 24 says the Risen Lord ascended into heaven at Bethany near Jerusalem, in front of all his disciples, but the other gospels don't even mention the ascension at all - surely this would have been worth mentioning if it really happened? Matthew says Jesus met them in Galilee, but makes no mention of ascension. And of course there is Matthew 27, which says tombs opened and dead people rose up and went into town, but no other gospel mentions this, nor any other NT text that I am aware of, nor any Roman record - although that would surely have made the front page? So although we don't know for certain what is true, we can be sure that much of it is myth, including some of the core details that are central to the practice of modern Christianity. Wdford (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the central tenant's of Christianity. I would find it incredulous for an early follower to not believe that he rose from the dead. This, along with the miracles, are what would have had people following him in the first place. This devotion of faith is what created the religion in the first place. Arzel (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - it appears you are dramatically overblowing the differences to make some point which is fine, but not really credible. Jesus was obviously an infant when he was presented at the Temple and "no" scholar believes that the Three Wisemen (or whatever the actual number was) came to Mary & Joseph at his birth so Herod would be looking for Jesus - why? The Gospel accounts state that he had no idea what he was looking for until the Wisemen came. Also he didn't order the death's of all children until (arguably) 2 yrs after the Star's first appearance (Jesus' birth). Referring to your point about Gospel "omissions", how many times have you see newspapers print descriptions of the same event and they differ slightly (or even dramatically) from writer to writer? Why is this a fault of the NT writers that they also do the same? I think the Gospels would be LESS credible if they were all lock-step duplicates of eachother. Finally, both you and TFD keep speaking of how LONG the NT was written after Jesus' death, but with even non-Christian scholars pegging the initial writings at maybe 30 yrs after his death (and that's the skeptics timeline), the evidence simply doesn't support that. Pretty concrete Biblical tradition holds that the gospel writers interviewed the first-hand witnesses - and of course the Bible was divinely inspired so the Holy Spirit would have guided their pens (which I know you don't agree with, but I'll say it anyway) so again how is this a problem? The writers interviewed the witnesses. Is Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation a bunch of made up crapola simply because he interviewed the men 50+ years after WWII? Maybe I'm having trouble following your point since I disagree with your (and now TFD's) base arguments... Sorry.

So I'm not sure we are still discussing 23haveblue's original question - we seem to be chasing rabbit holes...Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

We do not know that the author of Mark, the first gospel, interviewed witnesses, and it was written in AD 70, almost 40 years after Jesus's death, and we do not know that it has not been altered since. How accurate the account was is speculation. TFD (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The point here is about “myth” – were the NT stories real, or were they mythical? You appear to concede that the entire episode of the Three Wise Men following the Star and Herod’s fear of Jesus the King are pure myth – am I correct? Nowhere outside the NT is there any record of Herod murdering babies on a large scale – more myth? And to continue, I am not “overblowing” small discrepancies – these are HUGE discrepancies. One account says they fled to Egypt for years, another says they went to Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem and then went calmly home to Nazareth. One account says Jesus ascended bodily into heaven – a cornerstone of the religion – but the others are completely silent on this momentous event. One account says the dead arose and went into town, but the others are silent on this momentous event as well. Only two of the four gospels bother to mention the supposedly-virgin birth, but they give two stories that contradict in virtually everything except the parents’ names. When a close friend/relative dies and then comes back to life and appears to his friends/relatives, you would expect that such a momentous event would be recorded properly, yet the gospel accounts of these appearances are again substantially different. This goes beyond faulty memories to the realm of blatant propaganda – what is politely called “myth-making”. If the Holy Spirit really was guiding their pens, the Holy Spirit did a terrible job. Where newspapers print dramatically different versions - whether through incompetence or deliberate propaganda - their credibility is lost, so too the NT. And we are only considering the discrepancies between the four “official” gospels – the many other gospels differ even further. Of course the tradition is that the writers interviewed eye-witnesses, but the tradition is also that the gospels were written by Matthew Mark Luke and John, which is now known to be incorrect, so those traditions are clearly faulty. In those days a lifespan was not often longer than 40 years, so to find an eye-witness who was a comprehending adult at the time of Jesus’ ministry and who was still a reliable reporter 30 years later would be a stretch – and it’s a further stretch to assume the gospels were recorded even that early. The truth is that these stories passed through many different routes through time, and that they were much-amended over those many years, so that by the era of the “Church Fathers” the truth had long since been submerged under layers of myth. The many fundamental contradictions make this obvious. However believers will continue to believe. Wdford (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WDford, you said, Nowhere outside the NT is there any record of Herod murdering babies on a large scale – more myth? Why is it so difficult to believe that Herod would murder 20 or 30 children in a backwater village in Judea? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not difficult to believe - after all the CIA murders dozens of children in Pakistani backwaters every month with their drone strikes. However my point was that a) there is no record of this atrocity, although Herod's atrocities were quite well recorded by authors such as Josephus, and b) the Gospel of Luke makes no mention of this either, recording instead that the Holy Family calmly went into Jerusalem, and then went calmly back to Nazareth, without any sojourns in Egypt along the way, or seemingly any fear of the authorities. This level of discrepancy raises serious doubts about the credibility of the NT stories. Wdford (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think by now we can all predict our answers for various questions/comments so maybe we should agree to disagree (rather than continue to expose the distance we'd have to bridge) and close the thread as no decision can be made. On this page, 23haveblue's original request is kind of a minor issue. Ckruschke (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wdford, the Christ myth theory is that Jesus did not exist at all, not that some of the stories about him are fictional (not "mythical", which is the term you used). Indeed, historians reject much of the NT account, if for no other reason than miracles are considered a priori false. The existence of miracles and inconsistencies with known history may lead some historians to conjecture that Jesus himself never existed. This discussion thread however does not appear to have anything to do with improving this article, and it is probably best to abandon it. TFD (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede getting very large

Wdford has been trimming the lede, which is a good thing. It might be useful to salvage some of the stuff that was deleted by moving it to a separate section in the main body of the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If the lede needs trimming, then start with this part:

Critics of the theory, including Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists who believe that the gospels are reliable records of a historical Jesus, maintain that the proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship.

I don't know who put this in but it makes it sound that only biased people (Christian fundamentalists, biblical literalists and apologists) are the ones who are critical of this almost universally rejected theory. It is NOT only such people who "maintain" that the theory is only held by a tiny minority. It is a FACT that that it is almost universally rejected, and frequently rejected in the harshest terms. The militant atheist/agnostics never cease to amaze me in their attempts to legitimize this fringe theory. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the intro is long, and that I contributed to the problem with the new words about critics, but there is also an argument that there is a lot of repetition in that paragraph, and at least some should be moved to the criticism section at the bottom. This is, after all, an article about CMT, as there are already any number of wiki articles on the historicity of Jesus. Starting the third paragraph in an introduction with the statement "Proponents constitute a tiny minority," while I concede is true, is simply jarring to a reader, as it would be equally jarring to give CMT such prominence in a wiki article on the historical Jesus. Although footnoted, I felt that statement needed attribution of who says so. My solution noted that critics "included" fundamentalists, literalists and apologists (not that they are the only ones) and then offered links to explain those terms. Radath (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

After my previous post, I was inspired by Bill the Cat's model for consensus on his user page, so as he suggested, I am proposing a new paragraph about biblical scholarship that flows better within the page and is which is shorter with fewer repetitive quotes. I really think the baptism and crucifixion sentence is just too detailed for the introduction and would be better in the criticism section. Ironically, a quick reading of that sentence may support that Jesus lived (since most scholars agree), but to me it gives credence to CMT (if scholars can agree on only two events in all the gospels, perhaps none of it is true). In the spirit of NPOV, I re-inserted Ehrman's religious agnosticism which I believe gives him more credibility for the atheists and agnostics likely to read this article. I'm interested in all your thoughts and will not implement any of these suggestions before Thursday noon UTC:

Current: Proponents of the Christ myth theory only constitute a tiny minority of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship. Even though a strong consensus favors the historicity of Jesus and stands against the Christ myth theory, scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. For example, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Proposed: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived These scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. For example, although New Testament expert and skeptical agnostic Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed,, he also believes that Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Radath (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A big problem that plagues this article is that some editors understand the “Christ myth theory” to mean that Jesus did not exist at all, and they then happily shoot that down with “almost all scholars agree”. This usually results in wording that reads as if the gospel fables are all true. Other editors then argue that this is bunk, and bring their own hordes of sources that profess that the gospel stories are fictional/mythical. In order to avoid this constant argument, the largely-successful compromise has been to state openly in the lead that a Jesus-type person probably did exist, but that most of what the gospels say about him is untrue, and that all we can believe with any confidence is that Jesus was baptised and later crucified. I would also suggest we delete the two quotes from the lead. I would also prefer that we don’t wikilink the baptism and the crucifixion to the Bible stories, as although we have some confidence that these events took place, the gospel records thereof are full of extra detail which is surely false – e.g. the tombs opened and the dead rose up etc. I agree with the intention of the proposal above, but would suggest that we reword it to read instead:

Proposal 2: Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus among most classical biblical scholars that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Wdford (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add back a wikilink to the historical criticism article. Is classical biblical scholarship a commonly used term? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but I suspect the issue is based on the "Christian scholars vs secular scholars" debate. Personally I have no objection to your suggestion. Wdford (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account.

I propose the following rewrite of the entire lead section:

Proposal 3:The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community.

The idea was developed and popularised in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. Bauer's argument was that the New Testament is of no historical value, that the failure of ancient non-Christian writers of the 1st century to mention Jesus shows that he did not exist, and that Christianity was syncretistic and mythical in its beginnings. In recent years there has been more widespread debate on the subject. New Testament scholar Tom Harpur (a former Anglican priest) believes in a spiritual Christ, but believes that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and New Atheism activist Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ Myth Theory, that "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history," and that "the evidence (Jesus) existed is surprisingly shaky." Others argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although these scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Please share your suggestions? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I like where you are going with this, Wdford. I will be proposing a few suggestions to your version later tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal. I admit it is a little longer than Wdford's, but I've tried to include useful summaries (including internal wikilinks where possible) and NPOV. Since there are a number of new ideas, I will wait until Friday noon UTC before posting to allow time to make improvements: Radath (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory and that "reputable biblical scholars do not regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as reliable record of what actually happened in history." Although Dawkins wrote in 2006 that "Jesus probably existed," he added in 2012 "the evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky." New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived. Many scholars, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. New Testament scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic who has written about the questionable accuracy and authorships of the gospels, states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed, but he believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible.

Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies offers an arguably more balanced approach. Like many scholars, he question the historicity of the gospels and tends to believe there was a real Jesus, but makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and that there is room for scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Still much too long. Do we need to mention all these individuals by name in the lede? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting quotes in the lead. If we must mention them by name at all then surely we can summarize this by saying that opinions vary from xx who says the gospels are inerrant, through yy who says Jesus lived but wasn't as per the Bible, to zz who said Jesus never lived in the flesh, to ab who says the whole thing is a big fraud by the church? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually preparing a slightly shortened version when Mmeijeri and Wdford commented. give me half an hour for a proposal that takes these comments into account. Radath (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's work from this:

Proposal 5: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community.

The theory was developed in the 19th century by Bruno Bauer. His three-fold argument, still used by many myth proponents today, was that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. The idea was revived in the 20th century, and in recent years there has been more widespread discussion with a number of books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus in modern historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus indeed lived, although many scholars differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as depicted in the Bible. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" among experts of the New Testament are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Theologian and former Baptist minister Dr. Robert M. Price and historian Dr. Richard Carrier, as well as other atheists, argue that Jesus was neither divine nor historical. New Testament expert and former Anglican priest Rev. Tom Harpur believes in a spiritual Christ, but that Jesus was never a real person. Evolutionary biologist and atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins says that a credible case can be made for the Christ myth theory, that reputable biblical scholars do not regard the Bible as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and that the evidence that Jesus existed is “surprisingly shaky." New Testament scholar and agnostic Dr. Bart D. Ehrman states that virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus existed, but he personally believes Jesus was the preacher of an imminent apocalypse and not necessarily the figure depicted in the Bible. Professor emeritus Dr. Philip R. Davies believes there was a real Jesus, but questions the historicity of the gospels and makes the case that New Testament experts should be open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth.

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the stuff from "the only two events" onwards can be moved to the body of the text. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A shortened version without names or quotes for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 6: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and almost all scholars of antiquity that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain theologians and scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

Made a slight copy edit to the last proposal above, but otherwise support it, although the first paragraph might be longer, if someone could figure out what exactly what might be included in an expanded first paragraph. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by John Carter, I made the first paragraph slightly longer by adding back a partial sentence from Wdford's version (in recent years...). The revived text contains internal links to the 21st century authors and documentaries so readers don't have to slog through the early writings. I also added a couple of commas, added a link to atheists and slightly changed the wording in the last sentence. Any other suggestions? Radath (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with the "almost all scholars of antiquity" remark, as I believe it to be propaganda coming from the HJ research side. But since this there's already a POV tag and since we're dealing with a separate problem (length of the lede) here, for now it's fine. I'd avoid the use of the word theologians here, biblical scholars is generally more appropriate. The words are not synonymous. Anyway, I think the latest proposal is good enough to go into the article. We can always tweak it from there. There's no need to have a prior discussion on talk for every little change, because otherwise we'll soon be dealing with an overly long section discussing how to compress an overly long lede... Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated version below: Thanks for your comments, Martijn. I was paraphrasing Ehrman (current wording on page = New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus existed). I can also remove the word "theologian" but was referring to Philip R. Davies and assumed he was. Should I post to the main page or wait for further suggestions? Radath (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 7: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Certain contemporary authors argue that Jesus as depicted in the gospels was not a figure in history, but allow the possibility a real man was the inspiration for Christianity. Some believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never was a real person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every competent scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

A few final tweaks:

Proposal 8: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on the subject.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ. However New Testament experts differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I like prop 8. Upload it. Good work, by the way. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the statement or how the sources support it, "that a real man named Jesus may have been the inspiration for Christ". The sources are saying that there is a consensus among the relevant scholars that Jesus existed, not that he "may" have been the inspiration for Christ, whatever that means. If the concern is that people will misinterpret the attributed claim that "Jesus existed" with the claim that "Jesus existed and the Gospels accurately reflect his life", it should simply be stated that the scholarly consensus is also that the Gospels do not accurately reflect his life. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a few reservations about #8. While I like the idea of a longer first paragraph, I think the existing statement that this is only about the question of the historical existence of Jesus to be maybe an overstatement. At least some of the sources seem to indicate that they think a Jesus may have existed, but that the "Christ" elements of the story as we have it today are "mythic". That particular position doesn't seem to get the same degree of attention in this draft. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A few more final tweaks - cleaned up even further:

Proposal 9: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as described in the Bible did not exist, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument, first developed in the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, that non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

Some contemporary authors believe that a spiritual Christ exists but that he never was a flesh and blood person. Other atheists believe Jesus never existed in any sense. However, there is a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that a real man named Jesus existed, although they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life as reported in the New Testament. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree and upload? Wdford (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good. I wouldn't try to change it (except for maybe a comma after "However"). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe in brevity, but I think it has been stripped a litte too much. I will weigh in later this evening. I promised not to upload until 12:00 Friday UTC so I hope you extend me the same courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For the last four days, I have been proposing and re-proposing changes to the introduction, and have incorporated every suggestion from Wdford, Martijn Meijeri, John Carter, and others (removing names, removing quotes, incorporating words desired by CMT opponents, etc) even when I didn't agree. By the time we got to proposal 7, I think we had reached a nice compromise and NPOV, with special features such as direct internal links to contemporary authors and documentaries in sentence 2, as well as a concluding sentence suggesting further research and debate. By the end of proposal 6, Martijn was even suggesting it was good enough to post. So here is proposal 10 which is similar to 7, but it points out that CMT is controversial and also addresses the concern by Atethnekos that I did not adequately describe Hitchens's view in paragraph 2. Can I post? Radath (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 10: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed by in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship, and virtually every scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus lived Many New Testament experts, however, differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. '

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic.

We need to clarify a bit further that the argument is not about "A Jesus" but rather is about "The Gospel Jesus". I therefore propose the following compromise:

Proposal 11: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the the 19th century, that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings. Some contemporary proponents concede the possibility that Jesus was a real person, but that he was not the Jesus of Nazareth depicted in the gospels. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he was never a real person. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that New Testament experts should be more open to the possibility that Jesus was a myth and suggest there are opportunities for more scholarly research and congenial debate on this topic. In recent years, there have been a number of popular books and documentaries on this controversial subject.

I'm not sure who wrote Proposal 11 as it was unsigned, but I agree that I can better explain the first school of thought shared by Dawkins, Hitchens, Thompson and others (maybe even Ehrman) that the Gospels are inaccurate, inconsistent, based on myths and essentially not true, but they cannot say with certainty that there was not a man named Jesus whose life was mythologized many decades after his death. As well, for the sake of brevity and NPOV, I can compromise further and shorten the sentence about further research and debate. Now we are past the time I said I would post, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 12: The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community. Many proponents use a three-fold argument developed in the the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, non-Christian writers of the first century failed to mention Jesus, and that Christianity had pagan and mythical beginnings.

In recent years, there have been a number of books and documentaries on this controversial subject. Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths. Others believe in a spiritual Christ, but that he never lived. Still others, including some atheists, believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine.

Despite arguments put forward by authors who have questioned the existence of an historical Jesus, there remains a strong consensus agreement among historical-critical biblical scholarship that Jesus lived, but they differ about the accuracy of the accounts of his life. The only two events subject to almost universal assent among biblical scholars are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that there should be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.

Now we are past the time I said I would post a couple days ago, so I hope this compromised version will be acceptable to most. Radath (talk) Radath (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work. :) John Carter (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted Proposal 11 - sorry for missing out the signature. I am happy with Proposal 12 - it seems everything important has been covered. Wdford (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've posted the new intro which is considerably shorter than the old version (-1435). Thanks to everyone who contributed and compromised. I'm always amazed when text that is "written by committee" turns out so clear. Radath (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On a similar note, if someone has some time, they could clean up the footnotes which are quite inconsistent. As well, we could make the top of the page shorter by removing the dispute tag (this page is the result of much compromise from both sides) and the note about comparative mythology (which contradicts the previous sentence which includes a link to Christianty and comparative mythology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tags would generally require the consensus of the person who placed them, and I don't know who that was or whether they are still active. However, I would myself also support the removal of the tags at this time, to help establish some degree of consensus for the removal of the tag. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I was the last person to reinsert the tag, and I've removed it because of the recent changes. If someone feels the article is still biased (or has now become biased), he/she is free to reinsert the tag. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the POV tag, Martijn. That is great news. Do you know if we can also remove the note "Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology" or is it important. Radath (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand the difference - is there really any value in having this note? Wdford (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. I think it has something to do with merely ahistorical vs being derived from pagan myths. Price does believe the latter, I'm not sure about other CMT proponents. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then clarify this distinction in the Price sub-section, rather than in the heading? Wdford (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So we can remove the note? Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, but what's the point of "including some atheists" before "believe Jesus was neither historical nor divine"? It would seem more remarkable that some atheists "concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it that way as I read recently (perhaps from Ehrman) that most atheists (including Dawkins and Hitchens) concede that Jesus may have lived, and saying "some" was true and safer. Radath (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand the definition anymore: "is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed". This seems to be saying that mythicism is just denying that the gospels are true. That's just the standard view of historians, not mythicism. Mythicists are saying that all the accounts about Jesus fail to refer to any person at all, because that person never existed. And then again: "Some concede the possibility that Jesus may have been a real person, but that the biblical accounts of him are untrue and based on myths." Pretty much every historian except for some fundamentalists who don't employ an actual historical method believe that some biblical accounts are based on myths (in the sense of "legends" or "fictions"); that's not mythicism, just the mainstream. -Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Athenekos has a point. I think most historians of all sort tend to say that miracles of all sorts lie outside their area of expertise, and tend to leave questions regarding them to others, like scientists, theologians, and others, although some would propose ways in which purported miracles could occur in a more natural way. I think, and I hope others correct me if I'm wrong, the essential points of the purported history which are generally counted as "mythic" are those which relate to Jesus's possibly establishing a church, seeing himself as divinely directed, and certainly the idea that he was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead, among others. The "Jesus myth theory," that the individual himself never existed in a way even remotely resembling the religious accounts, is somewhat of a separate matter, but probably best included in this article anyway. Maybe it would be useful to somewhere in the lead indicate exactly which aspects are most frequently described as "mythic" in this sense. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The current definition (... is the proposition that the Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospels never existed, but was invented by the early Christian community) has been in the first sentence for very a long time. Now that Athenekos has pointed it out, defined that way, I suppose someone could call Ehrman and most mainstream scholars "mythicists" which is obviously not the case. The definition on the Jesus in comparative mythology page (The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the historical existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.) is clearer, isn't all that different, and has two footnotes (Theissen and Van Voorst). That article focuses on Strauss (who incidentally believed that Jesus lived, but created an uproar simply by suggesting that Jesus really didn't perform miracles) calling him "the founder of Christ myth theory". Is it possible that CMT originally referred anyone who questioned the historical accuracy of the gosepels (what were once fringe theories are now mainstream)? There is arguably a clearer definition in the Tom Harpur article (Christ myth theory, the idea that Jesus did not exist but is a fictional or mythological figure). We might want to adapt ours to simply say ( ...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure in history) which is something that Hitchens would say but Ehrman wouldn't. Radath (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean it's something to consider. But has it been the sentence for a long time? When did it change? I just went back a few months and sampled, and everything had just "...proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community." or thereabout e.g. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a reasonable question there, and I wish I knew how to answer it, other than, perhaps, repeating something I think Akhilleus said earlier , Ehrman(?) was at that time expected to have a new book on this topic out shortly, and as a form of neutral overview whatever definition(s) it uses might be the best to go by. Anyone know if that book is out yet, or what it says? John Carter (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The only book that Ehrman has on mythicism is Did Jesus Exist? (2012); I don't believe he has any plans to write another. Ehrman defines mythicism in there as: "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist . Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." (p. 12, Harper ebook version) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Akhilleos referred to the recent book by Ehrman and the forthcoming book by Casey in archive 43, when there was discussion about the relationship of Jesus to various preexisting mythic traditions. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue of the definition is what has plagued this article since forever. There is a clear distinction between "Jesus the Jewish teacher and trouble-maker" vs "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame". Many scholars and wiki-editors alike hold the simple view that "Jesus the Divine Savior of Gospel fame" was a myth/fable/fiction/lie/whatever, and therefore the Christ Myth Theory is actually the current mainstream scholarly consensus. However other authors and wiki-editors hold instead that the Christ Myth Theory actually states that "nobody named Jesus ever lived in any form ever", and therefore by their definition the Christ Myth Theory is fringe. Whichever group controls the definition on the day, the other side will determinedly put in their conflicting views, and thus they have argued past each other for years. The solution seems to be for Misplaced Pages to avoid taking a stance on the matter of the definition, as there is no consensus here from reliable sources, and instead to cover all the bases equally and fairly. So we now have a lead section that says "most scholars agree that there was a real guy named Jesus who was executed for some reason, but the Jesus of Nazareth as per the gospels is not considered to be a true story." It seems to be working so far. Wdford (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a good summery of the problems the definition has had over the years. A long time ago in this article's history there was an effort to present seemingly every idea that had been called Christ myth or one of it many synonyms in the last 100 years. The result as one might expect was a totally dysfunctional lede and an even more dysfunctional article.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fine leaving it as it is. The casual reader won't notice any ambiguity until they get to the second paragraph where they will get a sample of the range of ideas referenced in the Jesus in comparative mythology definition. Radath (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above, there didn't' seem to be concerns about removing the line at the top (Note: This article uses the word "myth" to denote a fictional narrative considered sacred, not in the academic sense of comparative mythology). I have removed as it appears to be an opinion without citations that contradicts the previous note about Jesus in comparative mythology. If anyone feels strongly it should be there, they can undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radath (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of CMT

Starting a new subsection because the length issue has been dealt with.

Do we have really any authors who define the CMT as anything that disputes the Jesus-as-Saviour known from the gospels? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily know of. I guess one question there is regarding the line of division between this article and the well-developed Historicity of Jesus article. There is a reasonable question of exactly how to define the differentiation between the content of the two articles, I suppose, and possibly other articles as well, and would definitely welcome some sort of discussion of which material to put in which article, and potentially other related articles as well. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly most authors dispute the supernatural elements in the gospels - the virgin birth, the Three Wise Men and their Star, the massacre of babies, the miracles, the resurrection and the ascension. Even the trials are disputed. The "consensus" allows that a Jesus-type person existed, but not that he was a divine miracle-worker who rose from the dead. We need to see a consensus definition from reliable sources, which after all these years does not seem to exist. Therefore I feel we should persist as is. There is clearly an overlap with the Historical Jesus article, but I think we have dealt with that adequately on both articles already - perhaps just a bit of tweaking is required? Wdford (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The authors I know best don't really use the words CMT, they all just agree that the New Testament cannot be used as historical proof, but their views differ after that (Dawkins says he probably existed, Hitchens concedes some charasmtic rabbi might have existed, Harpur believes he didn't exist, and Thompson concludes it doesn't matter if he existed or not). Radath (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That last point raises the question of the differentiation of the Christ myth, that Jesus was not the anticipated Messiah but rather someone who had those beliefs imposed on him apparently postmortem with stories created to justify it, and the Jesus myth, that even the basic, everyday, activities of the Jesus of the Christian story was artificial or mythic. This page would seem to me, logically, to be the best place to put content relating to the Jesus myth as well, and, maybe, including it as a separate subsection might be best, to the extent that some sort of definition of Jesus myth might be possible as well. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you have to differentiate between the two complete separate arguments: 1) there was a Jesus of Nazareth physical person, but his reported miracles and the works of God associated with him are myths (Historical Jesus) and 2) not only are the supernatural happenings bunk, but that there wasn't even a physical person named Jesus (CMT). I think Wiki does a good job of making that differentiation. Those of us who watch both pages just need to make sure there is a clear line between the two and that people from outside Wiki who try to add things into the wrong page are directed to the other page as necessary. Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

I vaguely remember a previous discussion about whether the article should be called the "Christ Myth Theory" or the "Jesus Myth Theory". We settled on the Christ Myth Theory for a reason - namely that there is very little RS support for a Jesus Myth Theory. However we do already state clearly in the lead that while its broadly accepted that a Jesus existed, only two elements of the gospel story are generally accepted, (and even then the bulk of the detail thereon in the gospels is unsupported). The current interpretation is that Jesus may have existed, but he wasn't the Christ - and this position seems to have lot of RS support. Wdford (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I imagine if you search through the archive you could find the actual material but it still wouldn't change the impression that not everyone using the term CMT or its equivalent is on the same page...which is likely where some of the confusion is coming from. Another possibility is we have a changing definition can what was called CMT would not qualify as such today.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new "Summary" section

Since I started contributing to the article on January 21, I have made approximately 80 out of the last 100 edits, including new sections on Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Alvin Boyd Kuhn (none of whom were even mentioned in the article), Tom Harpur, Thomas L. Thompson, David Strauss (who were all just briefly mentioned in other sections) and Documentaries. I worked and compromised with many of you in the creation of the new intro paragraphs, and elsewhere I have created supplementary information with new wiki articles on The Pagan Christ, Alvin Boyd Kuhn and K.L. Noll. Now I am suggesting this article needs a short summary of the three-point argument using NPOV so readers do not have to dig through the 25 sub-sections on various authors. Here is my proposal that I hope to post by noon UTC tomorrow for your consideration: Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary Proposal 1: German historian Bruno Bauer developed a three-fold argument for the Christ myth theory in the 1800s, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents. The following summaries of major arguments and their criticisms are meant as a brief overview. For further details or other arguments, consult the descriptions of the various authors and the Criticism section below.

1) Questionable accuracy and authorship of the New Testament:

Myth proponents argue the gospels were written many decades or even a century after the death of Jesus by individuals who likely never met him and then were edited or forged over the centuries by unknown individuals with their own agendas. They say the four canonical gospels were chosen by early church leaders from among dozens of others, frequently contradict each other and contain many details which are historically inaccurate. According to some, the letters from St. Paul or Pauline epistles were likely written before the gospels and generally refer to a spiritual Christ with no references to his life, parables or miracles. Theory critics maintain there are historically verifiable events such as the baptism and crucifixtion of Jesus, and even if the Bible is not wholly accurate, it does not mean that Jesus never lived.

2) No mention of Jesus by historians in early first century:'

Myth proponents suggest at least 40 historians, many who lived in Jerusalem in the first century, make no mention of Jesus or his miracles, and other than the gospels, there are no historic records of Jesus until the second century. It has been speculated that the brief reference to Jesus by the Jewish historian Josephus (AD 37–c. 100) is inconsistent with his other writings, may have been forged in the second century or may have referred to others who claimed the names Jesus or Christ during this period and that Tacitus (AD 56– c.117) used the historically questionable gospels as his source. Theory critics argue that there is more written about Jesus in Greco-Roman, Jewish and Islamic sources than most others who lived in that time period.

3) Pagan and mythological roots of Christianity:

Myth proponents note the stories of Jesus parallel myths about sun gods and other such as Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, Osirus, Adonis, Buddah, Krishna and many others. Archaeologists have offered evidence of writings which pre-date Jesus by over 2000 years which include details such as virgin birth on December 25th, deity father, star in the east, three wisemen, turning water into wine, raising the dead, persecution, crucifixion, descent into hell and resurrection. Suggesting that some parts of the New Testament were meant to appeal to Gentiles as familiar allegories rather than history, theorists also note that other stories seem to try to reinforce Old Testament prophecies and repeat stories of about Joshua (Yeshua) in order to appeal to Jewish converts. Theory critics explain that some of these similarities are coincidences or without historical basis and that Jews at this time would not have accepted such a close association with paganism.

I welcome all your suggestions and edits on this fine Sunday, but I think we should keep this summary brief. Radath (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
2. The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (1998), Harper SanFrancisco, ISBN 0-06-062979-7
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference DunnPaul35 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
5. ^ Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
6. ^ The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145
7. ^ Cite error: The named reference voorst16 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. ^ Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hertzog1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. ^ Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus ... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.
11. ^ Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee by Mark Allan Powell 1998 ISBN 0-664-25703-8 pages 168–173
12. ^ In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285 Cite error: The named reference "Ehrman285" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
13. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
14. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
15. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
16. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
17. Voorst 2003, p. 658. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2003 (help)
18. Voorst 2000, p. 8. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2000 (help)
19. Voorst 2000, p. 9. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2000 (help)
20. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
21. Playboy Interview; Richard Dawkins by Chip Rowe, August 20, 2012.
22. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
23. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
24. ^ Voorst 2000, p. 8-9. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVoorst2000 (help)
25. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN -4303-1230-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
26. Playboy Interview; Richard Dawkins by Chip Rowe, August 20, 2012.
27. Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2004)
28. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
29. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
30. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at intern.com
31. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
32. Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ (Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers, 2004)
33. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN -4303-1230-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
34. Playboy Interview; Richard Dawkins by Chip Rowe, August 20, 2012.
35. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman, Oxford University Press, USA. 1999, ISBN 0-19-512474-X.
36. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at intern.com
37. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
38. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
39. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
40. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
41. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
42. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
43. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
44. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
45. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
46. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
47. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
48. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
49. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
50. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
51. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
52. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
53. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
54. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
55. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
56. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
57. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
58. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
59. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
60. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
61. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
62. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
63. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
64. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
65. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
66. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
67. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
68. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
69. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
70. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
71. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
72. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
73. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
74. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
75. "Jesus Outside the New Testament" Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, p=8-9
76. Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. p. 122. ISBN 1-4303-1230-0.
77. God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens, 2007, Chapter 8
78. "The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David" Thomas L. Thompson Basic Book Perseus Books' 2005
79. The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur, 2004
80. Did Jesus Exist?:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins, USA. 2012. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8.
81. B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285
82. Is This Not the Carpenter?: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, Ed. By Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna, 2012
83. Davies' article Does Jesus Exist? at bibleinterp.com
84. A theory of primitive Christian religion by Gerd Theissen 2003 ISBN 0-334-02913-9 pages 23–27
85. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 7–8

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Mid-importance Mythology articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees