Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 27 August 2008

Christianity: Jesus NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Atheism NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Template:Talkheaderlong

Archives

Archive 1: To March 26, 2006, Archive 2: To April 30, 2006. Archive 3: Material removed by SOPHIA & Wesley (April 29, 2006), and comments. Archive 4: To May 31, 2006. Archive 5: Material removed by AJA, May 1, 2006, and comments. Archive 6: Lots of material Archive 7: Jan-May 2007, conversations leading up to the split Archive 8: To May 2007, Article split and name discussions Archive 9: May 2007-October 2007, naming, NPOV, etc. Archive 10: through Dec 2007: more NPOV, fringy-ness (or not), Bauer, etc. Archive 11: through Jan 31 2008: more NPOV, sources, etc. Archive 12: through Mar 18 2008: complaining about Grant quote, etc. Archive 13: through Apr 28 2008: more of the same Archive 14: through May 24 2008: RfC, neutrality, Grant, etc. Archive 15: through Aug 2008: scholarly response, euhemerization, docetism, circular discussion.

"Scholarly" response

Does anyone else agree that this is a pretty poor showing considering the JM is so clearly annihilated and unrespectable?

• Richard Burridge – Rev Dr Richard Burrage Dean of Kings College

• Graham Gould – Church warden and treasurer

• Robert E. Van Voorst – ordained minister

• Graham Stanton – Divinity faculty Cambridge (the best of the bunch but hardly impartial)

• Michael Grant – scholar but very broad base (the gospels were not his speciality) – can’t find confirmation of the atheist bit.

• R. T. France – Anglican rector

None of these sources can claim to be impartial - there MUST be better ones out there. All these do so far is confirm the accusations that the quotes currently used are not really representative of academia but serve to push a particular POV. Sophia 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving out the fact that all of these men hold or held academic positions. Graham Gould doesn't currently hold a teaching or research position, but was a lecturer in theology and religious studies at King's College London from 1990 to 2003, according to his webpage, and is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Theological Studies, an international academic journal published by Oxford University Press. This is a prestigious journal, and Gould's co-editorship is a sign that he's regarded as an expert in the field.

Robert Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary, specializing in the New Testament.

R.T. France, according to his Misplaced Pages article, "is a New Testament scholar and Anglican Rector." He was also the the Principal of Wycliffe Hall from 1989 to 2005--in other words, he was the academic leader of one of the colleges at Oxford for over a decade and a half.

The people listed above are experts in the fields of theology, religious studies, new testament studies, and ancient history. These are exactly the kinds of sources we're supposed to use in writing Misplaced Pages articles. They're certainly in an excellent position to judge the question for which they're cited--is the JMT a mainstream part of academic discussion on the historical Jesus, is it a minority position with some support, or is it considered a strange idea which you'll rarely (if ever) see discussed in a college classroom or academic journal?

Obviously some (perhaps all) of the people listed are practicing Christians. I don't see how this impairs their ability to judge what the consensus in the field is. And, as I've already said, if you really believe that Christians are so biased that they can't evaluate the JMT objectively and you believe that the field is dominated by these biased "apologists", then the theory is necessarily fringe--for according to this idea, the field can't allow the theory to be discussed. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is possibly a conflict of interest that is involved for some of these sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, not anymore than it's a "conflict of interest" for a climate scientist to say that there's a consensus in his/her field that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case its more like an Exxon executive saying that he does not see any signs of global warming. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a scientist funded by Philip Morris whose studies show that smoking does not cause lung cancer? ^^James^^ (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How about, it's a scientist voicing a position respected by the mainstream, and without specific evidence and examples of the bias corrupting their work, you're all engaging in conspiracy-mongering? I mean, you do realize that people who accuse scientists who support evolution or global warming of similar "conflicts of interest" are almost universally ridiculed and ignored, right?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bring science into this. One thing I have learned is that the scientific method and historical methods have no common ground. I would love to see error bars on some of the statements made by historians! We have been told and are given quotes that show that the JM has been "annihilated" and is not "respectable" amongst scholars. The quotes used for this seem old and do not follow through as others have shown. The situation we seem to be getting to (which is one I have suspected for a long time) is that Jesus' historicity is assumed by most scholars and the JM is therefore ignored as an academic dead end. The criticism section is also unduly dominated by RT France which should seem to all editors to be incorrect.

One day I truly hope this article will be what it should - a history of the idea with it's main points outlined, along with criticisms of the ideas and methods used. We need good quotes without the burden of "faith" turning them to emotive words - that does not mean we should not use Christian scholars but we should avoid anything that uses terms such as "annihilated" or "respectable" as these have crossed that line. Sophia 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that science has always had a problem with strutual/cosmological bias coloring the gathering, evaluation, and interpretation of information regardless of the science being social (soft) or physical (hard). I have previously mentioned how Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory was brushed off as crack pottery until the mid 1950's. Gregor Mendel had much the same reception of his Laws of Inheritance and they would not even be seriously looked at by the scientific community until some 50 years after they were first published. Aristotle's cosmology filled with flaws that simple experiments could show to be false held sway for nearly 2,000 years. These biases are even more pronounced in the social sciences like history and anthropology. Of the two only anthropology has actually made the bias problem part of the discipline and then only within the last 30 years. This is why I keep saying a historical anthropologist is really needed here as they are the one profession that has the needed skills to determine the social dynamics of period and region Jesus supposedly lived in and then evaluate what documents exist within that extrapolated framework. What little I have read that does involve some historical anthropology work is very primitive even by the standards of Binford and Dunnel early 1970's works.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to go and read up on scientific method and peer review. The only bias science has is towards reality - which rarely suits the god gang, and that's never more evident than on articles, such as this one. MonoApe (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And you need to read books on how science actually works not the myth of how it works. Anthropology to date is the only science that acknowledges the bias that can be present in researchers and how that bias can effect their observations. The late Fred Plogg recommended reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav to me and it shows the same thing that Burke talked in "Day the Universe Changed" and shown in Minor's "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" published in American Anthropologist 58:3, June 1956. As far as the peer review may I remind you that Doherty is the only one of these guys whose work on Jesus was published in a peer reviewed journal and all the other use popular books.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the RT France quotes are ambiguous, and way too prolific. half of the criticism section is quotes from this source, can someone more familiar with France's writing clean that up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is aboutr ther scholarly response, not about the "Christian response" (which could include the views of Church leaders etc), but which is not what this section is about. If you have scholarly evidence that the JM theory is supported by more than a tiny minority of historians then add it. Please try to improve the aricle by adding good sources and quality information rather than taking the easy way out by switching words to suit a POV in a way which make nonsense of the article. Also, it is clear that the scholars listed here are not all Christians, notably Michael Grant. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grant looks like he is old school historian and his parroting of two earlier author one of whom wrote them some 20 years earlier without much presented as why he agrees with them is hardly "scholarly". Even worse is having the book reprinted 20 years later and having these quotes applied to subsequent research that the original authors had no knowledge of. Calling this sloppy beyond belief is being kind to Grant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shows clearly that any and every legitimate argument and evidence for the proposition is always rounded off with a counter argument, no matter how weak or poorly referenced, from Christian apologists. Many of these 'scholars' are Christians who, by definition, approach the subject with "Jesus existed, let's find the evidence". A lot of it is simply fallacious argument from authority in order to protect the lynchpin of Xian religious belief. Also, some of the sources are decades old and superseded by more recent research. MonoApe (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Like? You do realize that several of the opponents of this hypothesis are in no way Christian apologists (Grant, for instance), and almost none of those cited are the "fundies" you are accusing? Please stop using fallacious ad hominem attacks, and simply present examples of reliable sources. It's no one's fault but your own if they don't stand up.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the reference I removed and you immediately reinstated. Did you not look at the changes before clicking on 'undo'? Making an assertion regarding "critical methodology" and then linking to a web page at a self-proclaimed Xian apologist website that provides no evidence of the supposed "critical methodology" is nonsense. Conservapedia.com is available for you to make up whatever suits your ideology or delusion. Further, referencing sites such as bede.org.uk and westarinstitute.org (which you reinstated incorrectly as a 404) would make it acceptable to then fill the article with assertions based on anything found at nobeliefs.com or Pharyngula. Try not to live down to your self-proclaimed propensity of being obnoxious and argumentative - these are not traits to be proud of. P.S. Expand your grasp of grammar by reading http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/a-an.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoape (talk • contribs) 12:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're chiding someone for being "obnoxious and argumentative", then supplying a link so he can expand his grasp of grammar? I don't think these actions are consistent. Furthermore, in US English, which this article is written in, "history" and "historical" are preceded by "a", not "an".

It's also amusing that you seem to think that the Jesus Seminar is equivalent to nobeliefs.com. (N.b., Pharyngula would be a pretty good source for some topics, but not this one.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm 'chiding', as you put it, this user because he describes himself as being, effectively, anti-social - and proud of it. Did you bother to read his user page? An article which explains my justification of the use of 'an historical' seemed appropriate - rational, evidence-based argument is usually the most productive variety, but maybe that's just me. I notice your counter-argument amounted to "thanks" - and you're an administrator?! Your thoughts on consistency have been noted and given due consideration.

You'll need to explain the humour. Jesus Seminar "was organized to discover and report a scholarly consensus on the historical authenticity of the sayings and events attributed to Jesus in the gospels" - it is the very definition of 'confirmation bias'. It's little different from "the bible says it is the word of god, the word of god is infallible, so the bible must be the word of god". Apart from supposed humour, you offer nothing to explain the difference between one partisan website and another on the opposite side of the argument. MonoApe (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It says it all that nearly 2 months on no one has come up with non partisan sources for the hordes of academics who think JMers are deluded and not respectable. I only just purged this article from refs to bede.org which is nothing more than a fancy apologetics blog and I am surprised to see them back again. Sophia 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly what you want? Clearly you don't believe atheists who hold to the Jesus Myth hypothesis are partisan, so perhaps you're looking for atheists who hold to the Jesus Myth but who also believe it has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus? If so, I understand that there's already a useful quote from Earl Doherty to that effect (it's reference number 18 in the article). --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jewish scholars? Others who accept the historicity of Jesus but have not based their life on the truth of the resurrection? The quotes we have now are from practicing committed christians. Allowing detractors to make final judgments on a subject and the respectability of its proponents does not make for informative or interesting reading. Sophia 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a few issues here. I understand why you get angry when Christian writers are referenced in this article, but I'm not sure that it's valid to dismiss what Christian scholars say simply on the grounds that they are Christians. You certainly don't dismiss what the atheists say simply on the grounds that they're atheists. If the Christian scholars are wrong to assert that the Jesus Myth theory has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus, it will be extremely easy to falsify this. All you would have to do is find a quote from a reliable reference source which demonstrated otherwise. If you can't find any information which falsifies the claim, then the claim stands. You can't say that the claim must be wrong simply because it was made by Christians. Not only that, but as I have pointed out there's already a useful quote from Earl Doherty which acknowledges that the Jesus Myth theory has been consistently rejected by the majority of scholars (it's reference number 18 in the article). Since no evidence has yet been put forward falsifying the claim, and Doherty is on record as actually acknowledging the claim, there exists both negative and positive evidence substantiating the claim.

Another issue is that quoting scholarly opinion (even the scholarly opinion of Christians), is not 'allowing detractors to make final judgments on an issue and the respectability of its proponents'. No one here is refusing to include any evidence which demonstrates that the opinion under question concerning the scholarly consensus is wrong, so all you have to do is go off and find some. If the opinion is wrong, it will be easily falsified. The only comment I can see which comes close to what you clam is 'I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more', and that is not saying what you imply. It says that the author himself does not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more, it does not make a sweeping judgment on all of the proponents of the Jesus Myth theory. Once again, if the claim under question is wrong then it will be a simple task to falsify it, especially given the extremely general nature of the claim. But to date no evidence has been provided falsifying the claim, and Doherty openly acknowledges it.

If you are going to continue to challenge the claim simply on the basis that no Jewish scholars or 'Others who accept the historicity of Jesus but have not based their life on the truth of the resurrection' have been provided who make it, then I'm going to continue to point out respectfully that this is not a criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, and that the claim thus far has met the actual criteria required. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> First, this is not about whether this is a minority position - it is and the Doherty quote usefully supports this. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Doherty quote note only identifies it as a minority position, it explains why. It's a minority position because it just doesn't find any widespread support from the academic community. The vast majority of works on Jesus accept his historicity as a matter of fact. This is verifiable. If they didn't, it would be easy to falsify the claim under discussion. This fact is not only acknowledged by Doherty, he even hints darkly at some massive conspiracy in order to explain it. He's always good for a laugh. Real tin foil hat stuff. I suppose it puts bread on his table though, and we all have to find our way in life. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"The vast majority of works on Jesus accept his historicity as a matter of fact." - as has been pointed out, that is because the 'vast majority' are theists who approach the topic with the conclusion already established - they just need to find the evidence. It's like establishing that Liverpool_F.C. is the best football club in the world by seeking the opinion of Liverpool fans. The fact that many theologians still use Josephus as a cornerstone of proof of Jesus' historicity speaks volumes about the certainty of his existence.

As Sophia has patiently pointed out, this article is very sub-standard, and yet almost impossible to improve because of knee-jerk revisions (witness my recent attempts) and the inability of Xian apologists to differentiate evidence from opinion. MonoApe (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. The vast majority of scholarly works on Jesus, whether secular or Christian, accept his historicity as a fact. That is not simply seeking the opinions of 'fans', that's including the vast majority of secular commentators. The very fact that this article can only cite a handful of works arguing for the non-historicity of Jesus over the last 100 years is itself significant. And look at who authored those works. The modern writers cited in the article are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, 'who are both popular writers on mysticism', GA Wells (a professor in German), who in 1999 changed his viewpoint and acknowledged the Q Source as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, Earl Doherty (another populist writer with irrelevant academic qualifications), who openly acknowledges he was influenced by Wells (no independent research here), the completely unknown Kenneth Humphreys (published by the highly reputable Historical Review Press), the equally unknown Hermann Detering (who isn't even referenced), and who else? Well that's it. That's all we have. None of these writers are recognized historians, two of them are popular writers (not academics), and none of them regularly publish in peer reviewed literature in the relevant fields (to the best of my knowledge). I have no problems with them being referenced in the article, but let's not pretend that they represent anything but a fringe view which can't even summon up significant support from secular scholarship. Earl Doherty has gone so far off the deep end that he has even claimed that unnamed 'interests', both religious and secular, have 'mounted a campaign' against the view. Why? Because he acknowledges that even secular scholarship with no axe to grind for Christianity won't fall into line with his theory. If the only scholars who objected to this view were Christians, that might be significant. But there's overwhelming objection to this view even among secular scholarship, and Doherty acknowledges it. Why can't you? --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick search through google produced not only Robert M. Price (a Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies) but also Alvar Ellegard (former Dean of the Faculty of Art University of Goteborg, Sweden), Frank R. Zindler (a professor though admittedly of biology and geology), and Thomas "Tom" Harpur (former New Testament professor of University of Toronto). Are you trying to say these are not scholars? How come it was so easy for me to find them you could not?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I couldn't find them. But what you have stated here helpfully confirms what I have written above. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind explaining just how my statement supports your claim: "The modern writers cited in the article are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, 'who are both popular writers on mysticism', GA Wells (a professor in German), who in 1999 changed his viewpoint and acknowledged the Q Source as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, Earl Doherty (another populist writer with irrelevant academic qualifications), who openly acknowledges he was influenced by Wells (no independent research here), the completely unknown Kenneth Humphreys (published by the highly reputable Historical Review Press), the equally unknown Hermann Detering (who isn't even referenced), and who else? Well that's it." You did NOT mention Alvar Ellegard, Frank R. Zindler or Thomas "Tom" Harpur and implied they wrote nothing on the subject with your "Well that's it" statement. Then I found an anthropological paper that flat out states there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus by someone previously unmentioned. Sorry but that dog doesn't hunt.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Second, I am not angry - after two years on this article the only emotion left is a sense of the futility of any attempts to improve it. Third, why is it unreasonable to expect a spread of scholarly opinion to support a committed christian's pronouncement that this theory is effectively refuted? He obviously has a COI. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to expect a spread of scholarly opinion to support a committed Christian's pronouncement. But there's a difference between a statement made by a committed Christian as a committed Christian, and a statement made by a committed Christian as a professional scholar in a peer reviewed professional work. The quotes supplied all fall into the latter category. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly NONE of these quotes on either side comes from a peer reviewed professional work. However I have found one: "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. Now if there is an article that directly refutes Fischer's statement let's see it; remember like Fischer it must appear in a peer reviewed journal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And forth, you make the classic mistake that atheists only don't believe in the christian god and are therefore just as biased. Christians don't believe in Atlas or Zeus etc -atheists just don't believe in one more god than them. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I didn't make any such argument. But the fact that atheists don't believe in any god means that they have what you define as a conflict of interest whenever they discuss any religious topic. But you don't believe that they have a conflict of interest when they discuss a matter which involves views contrary to their point of view. You think only Christians experience such a conflict of interest. I don't understand why you think that's a valid viewpoint. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very wrong. As an atheist, I have no conflict. I had assumed for a long time that an historical Jesus was well-established. That made no difference to my dismissal of the magical element to the story. On the other side, every Xian has their entire lifetime faith invested in the historicity of this one character. It's little wonder that impartiality and rigorous academic method is lacking from theologians.

After investing some time on the subject, it turns out there is no reliable historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus. If there were a grain of truth to his 'miraculous' existence, there would've been massive contemporary and corroborating evidence - but there isn't. There's simply testimony from decades later, Christian poetry and some heavily interpolated writing, penned decades after the fact. Jesus' existence is simply a massive assumption that is perpetuated by Xian apologists. MonoApe (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an atheist claiming they have no conflict of interest when assessing the truth claims of a religion is an atheist who is very difficult to believe (and that's putting it politely). The very fact that you describe his existence as allegedly 'miraculous' shows that you have a conflict of interest. You believe that his existence is asserted to be miraculous, you don't believe in the miraculous, so you therefore cannot believe he was a historical figure. If you want to provide evidence that 'impartiality and rigorous academic method is lacking' from the pro-historicist sources cited in the article, please go right ahead and do so. I'll remove any you identify as such. The rest of what you wrote was simply personal opinion. It would hold more weight if you were actually qualified in this field, or at least demonstrated knowledge of the relevant data (both historical and scholarly). But you didn't, and this isn't the place for it anyway. If you want to debate the historicity of Jesus please feel free to go elsewhere. This Talk page is not the place for such a discussion. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not assessing the truth claims of a religion - we are assessing the historicity of an individual. Have you not read this article?!! I would actually be quite happy for evidence to exist - it would make the subject more interesting and wouldn't cause the least problem for my view that the supernatural is merely wishful thinking. Proving a certain man existed ~2000 years ago is a long way from turning him in to a god! I'm pretty certain Michael Travesser exists, but he ain't anything other than a delusional man - despite what he and his followers believe.

As for your weak attack on my lack of expertise, it's irrelevant. I'm as capable of sourcing and quoting expert references as the next person. Misplaced Pages would be a desolate place if your reinvention of policy was implemented and only experts were able to contribute. Your irrationality is beginning to show - 'Jesus historicity' and 'Jesus myth' are very much the same thing. If you don't wish to participate in discussions that trouble you, you will find Conservapedia.com a far more comforting environment. MonoApe (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As to proving a negative - go read Bertram Russell for that one.  Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't asked you to prove a negative. I've asked you to supply evidence falsifying a claim which is falsifiable. This should be a simple task if the claim is in fact false. Standard secular reference works would give prominence and heavy weight to the Jesus Myth hypothesis. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This theory is ignored by the mainstream scholarship in general as to do otherwise is career suicide.

Really? That's quite a claim. Do please present the evidence for this. It would be well worth having in the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the same thing as supporting the historicity of Jesus. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it isn't. I don't see anyone here arguing that the lack of support for the Jesus Myth hypothesis constitutes evidence for the historicity of Jesus. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As Thomas Thompson says - the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of modern scholarship, not a finding. Sophia 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And as Jennifer Shaw says, 'oogly moogly!'. Which is as relevant to this topic as anything Thomas Thompson has said. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all the stuff from bede.org should go, and I've said so before; but it matters not whether Misplaced Pages editors think that scholars are "partisan"--it only matters that they're experts in their field. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is a slight misrepresentation of what Verifiability which when there is a conflict supersedes Reliable sources says. The issue of if an author is an expert in the field comes if the work in question is self published. Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman's claim regarding micro lettering on a certain coin is a case in point. Despite Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman's credentials his claims regarding the coin never appeared in an any archeological journal. John McRay a Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Archaeology Wheaton College Graduate School Wheaton, Illinois has written a book totally supporting Vardaman's claim. But here is the kicker, David Hendlin a specialist in numismatic science disproved this in "Theory of Secret Inscriptions on Coins is Disputed," The Celator 5:3, March 1991, 28-32). Though by the Bermuda Triangle Planet Twilight Zone logic Akhilleus is presenting since David Hendlin is not an expert in archaeology he cannot be used to refute Vardaman's or McRay's claims despite Hendlin having published in a peer reviewws journal like The Celator while Vardaman's claims or anything supporting them has not. Anybody else see the apparent ridiculousness and utter insanity of this position?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> So we end as we began.... Taiwan boi has passionately argued that everyone, whatever their beliefs is happy that Jesus was a real person (except for nasty atheists) so ....... as I said at the very start of this thread, surely we can add some quotes that don't come from committed christians to give balance. Do not refactor this post -thank you. Sophia 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be melodramatic. I have not 'passionately argued that everyone, whatever their beliefs is happy that Jesus was a real person (except for nasty atheists)'. I have simply pointed out that there is overwhelming positive and negative evidence for the claim under question, and I have explained why atheists are those who are most likely to dispute the existence of Jesus (which is a verifiable fact). As Akhilleus has rightly noted, 'it matters not whether Misplaced Pages editors think that scholars are "partisan"--it only matters that they're experts in their field'. I pointed out that there's a difference between a statement made by a committed Christian as a committed Christian, and a statement made by a committed Christian as a professional scholar in a peer reviewed professional work. The quotes supplied all fall into the latter category. If you were actually arguing against them because they violated Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria, that would be different. That would be a valid argument. But they don't. So your only objection to them ('They're Christians, they have a conflict of interest, they must be wrong'), is invalid. Monoape's only objection to them ('Jesus never existed anyway, which is why there's no evidence he did'), is equally invalid. None of this is addressing properly the material in the article.

I am in full agreement with whoever presented the quotes in the form 'Richard Burridge and Graham Gould state that', 'Robert E. Van Voorst has stated that', and 'Graham Stanton writes'. I don't understand how anyone could object to statements presented in such a way. The sentence ending 'it carries little weight among the majority of biblical historians and scholars' has been properly referenced using WP:RS. So what exactly is the problem? --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth and going right back to the beginning of this section quite a few pro-historical Jesus scholars seem to have been missed from the list viz:

James H. Charlesworth; James Dunn (theologian); Daniel B. Wallace;John P. Meier; E. P. Sanders; Gerd Theissen; William Lane Craig; Craig A. Evans; ...

I could also add the following who are not cited in this article Paula Fredriksen, Robert W. Funk, Géza Vermes, Marcus Borg, Larry W. Hurtado; I. Howard Marshall; Helmut Koester, James Tabor, Gerd Ludemann ...

For non-academic's who still support the existence of Jesus try James Cameron, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and ....

The point I'm making is that the hypothesis that Jesus is a myth is, as Taiwan boi observed ' a minority position because it just doesn't find any widespread support from the academic community.' Mercury543210 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PS I think the arguments about objectivity vs subjectivity should be split out from here. Everyone has a POV, accept it and move on.

Mercury, from what I can see a lot of the people in that list are Christians, which is exactly what Sophia is complaining about. --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sophia is not complaining they are christians, she is asking why we only have christian quotes if there is such a diversity of agreement against the JM. This is the point that keeps getting ignored. Sophia 09:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>I wasn't aware that Michael Grant was a Christian. I wasn't aware that GA Wells is a Christian. I would need to see evidence that Graham Stanton is a Christian. Earl Doherty is certainly not a Christian, and he acknowledges that support for the historicity of Jesus is widespread within both secular and religious circles. That statement of his is in the article. If you're not contesting the statement, then what's the problem? --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason for listing those people is not that they are/are not Christians but that all of them have written about the 'historical Jesus'. IF someone is "unhappy" that some of them are Christians then they need to demonstrate that their belief in some way invalidates their scholarship. Mercury543210 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find these posts bizarre. We have been told that virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and yet the quotes in the article are backed up by christians or those with no real expertise in the subject. As to how someones faith can affect their views - go ask the pope to recommend a method of contraception. Sophia 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotes are also backed up by people with relevant expertise who are not Christian (Grant, Wells, Doherty). I also pointed out that there's a difference between a statement made by a committed Christian as a committed Christian, and a statement made by a committed Christian as a professional scholar in a peer reviewed professional work. The quotes supplied all fall into the latter category. If you were actually arguing against them because they violated Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria, that would be different. That would be a valid argument. But they don't. So your only objection to them ('They're Christians, they have a conflict of interest, they must be wrong'), is invalid. Monoape's only objection to them ('Jesus never existed anyway, which is why there's no evidence he did'), is equally invalid. None of this is addressing properly the material in the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed the memo that says Christians can't be scholars. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity? Sophia 21:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Red herring? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuff said. Where are the non christian scholars? Sophia 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Grant and Stanton are already there (I also included Wells). Would you like me to add Robin Lane Fox and Morton Smith? And please note that Doherty is a useful hostile witness to the fact that the scholarly community does actually dismiss the Jesus Myth hypothesis out of hand.

Why would this matter? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Doherty quote says mainstream scholars find this subject "unimportant". I cannot comment on whether the following sentence about a "campaign against it" by both biblical and secular scholars as I don't have access to the book. It's a pretty big stretch from that to say that virtually all historical scholars support the historicity of Jesus. The only ones that are vocal on the subject have an obvious COI. Partisan sniping aside, a definite statement of the status of the historical debate on this subject should be backed by a broad swathe of academia. It will make the article better referenced and these debates would stop. Sophia 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying that Doherty's quote says 'virtually all historical scholars support the historicity of Jesus'. What he does say is that mainstream scholarship dismisses the Jesus Myth hypothesis as unimportant (of course he explains this by appeal to a worldwide conspiracy of religious and secular forces, and may as well add 'Space alien ate my Buick!' while he has his tin foil hat on). Surely you're not denying that Doherty is identifying the fact that mainstream scholarship supports the historicity of Jesus? And how can you say that the only ones that are vocal on the subject have an obvious COI? Grant? Martin? Wells? Fox? Stanton? Please identify the 'obvious conflict of interest' which each of these sources has. I agree that a broad swathe of academia would be very good to have in this article. Unfortunately academia supporting the Jesus Myth hypothesis is distressingly underrepresented in this article. Perhaps that's because it hardly exists, or perhaps that's because people haven't looked hard enough. But there has been a broad swathe of academia presented for the historicist case, including four non-Christians. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Doherty does NOT talk about a "worldwide conspiracy of religious and secular forces" but rather the real world conservatism against new ideas that shake the status quo. Look at how long the idea that Vikings came to North America took to be accepted, or how long Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory was brushed off as crack pottery, or how Gregor Mendel's work was basically ignored. James Burke in his Day the Universe Changed described it as 'holding on to the old ideas like grim death'. Look at how long the Aristotle cosmology dominated Western thought even thought the simplest experiments showed it was wrong in so many places; only once the political influence of Christianity was broken did the model finally get dumped (not before the Church killed several people who said otherwise). Look at Steve Bitterman an adjunct professor at Southwestern Community College in Iowa who was fired for saying Adam and Eve was a fairy tale; if they are that sedative on something like that it is no wonder no one wants to touch the Jesus myth theory with a 10 foot pole.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Grubb, let me explain to you what WP:SOAP means. It means (among other things), that this Talk page is not the appropriate place for you to air your personal prejudices, nor to debate the issue in the main article. The content may be debated, not the issue. You have consistently engaged other editors in arguments over the truth claims of the theory in the main article. That is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. You should know this. You have been told this more than once. Doherty says nothing out 'real world conservatism'. He claims instead that unnamed 'interests', both secular and religious, have conspired to prevent his pet theory being accepted within mainstreadm scholarship. I am responding to the rest of this on your Talk page. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Taiwan, but it is you who are WP:SOAPing as I have a peer reviewed journal article that states. "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. Per Misplaced Pages:PRIMARY this supersedes all the other nonsense unless someone can produce a LATER peer reviewed article or university press book that specifically addresses Fischer's statement.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

<unident> Sophia wrote "Does anyone else agree that this is a pretty poor showing considering the JM is so clearly annihilated and unrespectable?" and listed 6 scholars, whom she felt were not 'objective'. I listed 8 more who were cited in the article but Sophia had not listed (most are "Chritians" (I believe). I then added a further 9 scholars + 3 'popularisers' who had all written books about the historcity of Jesus, at least 9 of whom do NOT (I believe) consider themselves "Christians". I am therefore very puzzled that this discussion carries on. How many non-Christians does it take to "change this particular light bulb"? Mercury543210 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't even matter if they're Christians or not. It only matters whether they're experts in the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Faith affects peoples work - just ask a Catholic doctor to sign the form for an abortion and see what reaction you get. We will never agree on that score so lets focus on the diversity of the scholarship. The list I gave above were the most vocal opponents in the article at the time. I have not had a chance to read through thoroughly recently as real life is so busy. The idea of the sandbox version covering the authors chronologically sounds good as we have such a mix at the moment it is really hard to follow. Each author brings different points to the idea and covering them individually would make that easier. On my shelf I have the Allegro books, Thompson, Freke and Gandy and a couple of others that I will check up on. I can help with those - who has access to the others? Sophia 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? The question we are discussing is whether these writers believe in the existence of a Jesus in history. We are not concerned, in this article, in 'who' this Jesus was. All the writers listed attest to the existence of Jesus. For this article that is enough. The 'who' belongs in other entries. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Majority or minority view?

I did explain in my edit summery. The point is that all that is needed is an explination that the Jesus myth hypothesis is a minority view among scholars. It is not necessary to kick the theory around -- as the disputed material does. Being a majority does not justify arrogance toward the other editors, or toward the subject of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed text did seem to be quite reliably sourced. Would not failing to "kick the theory around" be giving undue weight to it? Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing alone is not the issue, it's the picking of certain sources to portray a biased view that's the problem. If you think "kicking around" is allowed, you need to go read WP:NPOV pronto. We are here to objectively present information, not let one side completely get to say whatever it wants to, even if it's trying to claim facts that are only mere opinions. Western culture is culturally biased toward supporting Jesus all out of proportion to what the evidence actually says. Mere numerical superiority in no way establishes factual superiority, and the article must be worded to reflect that. (We dont have to even argue that the majority could be wrong, as that's assumed, we just can't let the majority try to pretend to be the only source that could possibly have any value.) DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your ability to misinterpret is impressive. I was reverting an unexplained deletion by an anonymous editor, which is what my edit summary referred to (in reply to your claim that I was adding an unbalanced POV). You reverted my reversion of the deletion of longstanding material. Please take the trouble to check edit histories before reverting. What on earth this has to do with "arrogance towards other editors" is a mystery. The theory has almost no support in academia, but it is certainly a notable fringe theory. However, it is important that the lede should point out that it is rejected by most scholars. Ther lede should summarise the salient points of the article. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you colour your comment with links (see supplementary notes), so I can immediately follow it? El_C 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added links and further explanation. Paul B (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a pretty clear difference between the old version of the article which I restored--"The consensus of most biblical scholars and historians is that Jesus was a historical figure, and the hypothesis of Jesus' non-historicity is rarely discussed in current academic literature" and the text put in by Blue Tie and restored by Malcolm Schosha--"There are researchers who state that the Jesus Myth hypothesis has either been answered or is supported by a small number of historians." The first states that the JM hypothesis is a minority view, the second attributes the statement to some researchers. The first version is preferable because the fact that the JM is a minority view should be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, instead of being presented as the view of individual scholars--we have clear statements that the consensus of the field is that the JM is a minority view (really, a fringe view). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your comments here quite severely mischaracterizes the content of the edit you made. It wasn't that the version you prefer stated that it's a minority view (which is already stated elsewhere in the article) it went out of it's way to try to portray the criticism as if it were stronger and more factual, and pushed in the critical view in sections completely unrelated to that topic. When talking about the history of the subject, for example, we don't need a paragraph out of nowhere in which some modern author argues strongly that those views are wrong. History is full of changing ideas. The version of the article you are supporting goes beyond saying what the scholars say to outright advocating that position at every opportunity, which is a major violation of NPOV policy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a severe exaggeration, given that my edit affected two sections of the article. If people think the Doherty quote belongs somewhere else, I don't have a problem with it being in a different section. My main issue with Blue Tie's edits is the sentence I quoted in my post just above. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:COI, and take it to heart. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking particularly of this section:

Close relationships

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:No original research, and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability — when editing in that area.

I think this is one the most difficult things for any editor to deal with, because it is not at all obvious when our editing is being influenced personal beliefs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I am neither Marx nor Engels, what "personal beliefs" are you referring to? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain but your assumption of bad faith, as stated on this talk page and here , makes me disinclined to discuss anything more. Rather than trying to solve the problems of the article and of the polarized editing situation, you give the impression that you want to build a case to take to the administrators noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm assuming bad faith, but I fear you may be. You seem to be assuming that I'm a Christian, and this is distorting my editing. Is this a correct interpretation of what you're saying? If so, what evidence do you have of my religious beliefs? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in your religious beliefs...if any. But you frequently seem dug in on you positions in a way that suggests that your mind is made up on the Jesus myth hypothesis. That is a problem. Is there any basis for discussion and compromise? So far I have seen you, and a few other editors, are interested in little else than trying to force into the article the POV that this article is based on nothing but a Fringe Theory. If the problem is not COI, what is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are not interested in Akhilleus's religious beliefs then why did you refer to WP:COI? It is rather difficult to follow your arguments. The fact is that the "Jesus myth" theory is a fringe view. That does not mean that it is being treated in the same way as belief in Crystal Healing by Venusians, just that it is not a view that has any significant scholarly support. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and has been extensively documented on this talk page. People who believe that Jesus existed are no more likely to be devout believers than are people who believe that Mohammed existed. The great majority of secular historians believe he existed, just that was a man of his age. The theory that he is a mythical being is actually far more "religious" than the more banal view that he was a bloke. Paul B (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul, is there any basis for discussion and compromise? Or are you, and Akhilleus, determined to force your assumptions into the article? If compromise is possible, we can go ahead and improve the article. If not, please explain the problem. If the problem with your editorializing the contents of the article is not COI, what is it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's documenting what mainstream scholarship says about this idea--i.e., that it is a fringe theory with no significant support. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My recollection is that when I wanted to include the views of Hyam Maccoby on Jesus , that you blocked that. When I wanted to include the views of Tom Paine and of H.P. Blavatsky, that was opposed also. Are you willing to reconsider on any of these sources? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since neither Paine nor Maccoby deny the historicity of Jesus, there's no reason to include them. Blavatsky, in my opinion, is not particularly significant on this topic, and I wouldn't include her either. So I suppose the answer is "no." If it can be demonstrated that any of these writers are important to this topic, I wouldn't be happy to reconsider. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I want to repeat my questions to Paul directly to you also: is there any basis for discussion and compromise? Or are you, and Paul, determined to force your assumptions into the article? If compromise is possible, we can go ahead and improve the article. If not, please explain the problem. If the problem with your editorializing the contents of the article is not COI, what is it? So far I have not received a clear answer from either of you.

By the way, I would like to change the introduction to include views such as Maccoby, because he is a respected scholar who makes clear that the thinks that Jesus as described in the Bible did not exist. That is what we are talking about. Right? Probably there is no reason not to include him even without any change in the introduction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"...he is a respected scholar who makes clear that the thinks that Jesus as described in the Bible did not exist. That is what we are talking about. Right?" Wrong. This article is about the idea that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. There are plenty of scholars who believe that Jesus existed, but not as he is described in the bible--one might say that the quest for the historical Jesus is about finding the "real" Jesus disguised by the mythical/theological elaborations of the Gospels, etc. Many, perhaps most, scholars who are interested in the historical Jesus think that the Gospels are unreliable historical testimony in some respect--and many do not believe that the historical Jesus was a divine personage.

As for your point about COI, it's pretty much a non-starter. It's not "editorializing" to indicate that this idea isn't accepted in academia. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before the Jesus Myth covers a huge range. Remember that Bauer had Philo as the "father" inspiration for the Biblical Jesus and Philo would be a contemporary of the Gospel Jesus; so the idea of someone living during the time the Gospel Jesus supposedly lived inspiring those stories is not out of the range of the Jesus Myth. Furthermore, the more distance between a supposedly historical Jesus and the Gospels the more you create a kind of "based on a true story" nonsense proclaimed about films like The Hills have Eyes; sure it is based on the Sawney Bean story but there is nothing to show that story actually happened or is true. Past a certain point you get the impression of desperation time of finding any guy named Jesus who lived at the "right" time and got himself crucified aroudnt he right time will fit the bill.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what the first paragraph of the introduction:

The Jesus myth hypothesis, also referred to as the Jesus myth theory, the Christ myth or the Jesus myth is an argument against the historicity of Jesus. It holds that there is a lack of historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus of the Bible, with significant mythological parallels between the narrative of Jesus in the gospels and mystery religions or myths of rebirth deities of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism, and that this suggests that the figure of Jesus is a non-historical construct of various forms of ancient mythology or a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons. A related hypothesis claims that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from and embellishments on the life of an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

I do not see any basis for you wanting to exclude Maccoby. In fact the introduction specifically includes the possibility of an historical person, but who is entirely different than the Jesus of the Gospels. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "a mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons." Like, a century earlier than Jesus is supposed to have lived--the 1st or 2nd century BCE. That's quite different than what Maccoby, and anyone else working on the historical Jesus is doing. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken, and I will include Maccoby when the article is unblocked. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend that. You have a very strange idea of what this article is about. To put it as plainly as I can, this article is about the idea that the historical Jesus (we can call him Jesus of Nazareth if you prefer) did not exist, and there is no historical person behind the stories of the Gospels. The final two sentences of the current lead describe a variation on this idea, that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, but some person who lived at an earlier time--e.g. Jesus ben Pandera or, if we can trust what a certain editor has told us about Alvar Ellegard, the teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you take a look at Robert Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament, he discusses one proponent of this variation of the JM, John M. Robertson. Van Voorst characterizes Robertson's views this way: "the only possible trace of a 'historical Jesus' in Christianity may come from a vague recollection of the Talmud's shadowy figure Jesus ben Pandera, executed under Alexander Janneus (106-79 BCE), but the Jesus of the New Testament never existed." (p. 11) That last clause is important--Robertson shares with Bauer, Drews, Wells, Doherty, etc. the core idea that the historical Jesus never existed.

In contrast, Maccoby believes that there was a historical Jesus, and that we can determine certain facts about him from the New Testament and other literature. He shares this belief with the vast majority of current New Testament scholars, and if you think Maccoby belongs in this article, so do John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Geza Vermes, and so on. But why would we do that? No one would call them proponents of the Jesus myth, and no one (except, perhaps, you) would call Maccoby a proponent either.

So, again, I would not agree to add Maccoby, unless it can somehow be established that he's important to this topic. Please note, Malcolm, you've said a lot about discussion and compromise, but you have never explained why you think Maccoby belongs here. Saying things like "You are quite mistaken" without any explanation isn't a substitute for discussion. If you really believe that Maccoby has something to do with this topic, could you try explaining why you think that? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I would expect that you would oppose such changes because that is consistent with you editing stance on this article. So your opposition does not concern me. What does concern me is the absence of other editors in this discussion who should not be absent, and it is that which has caused me to decide to cease editing this article. (I consider you change in the headings to make it look like COI was the focus of this discussion -- instead if the article itself -- unacceptable. Please do not do that again.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. I created a subsection because it's difficult to edit talk pages when the discussion gets so long. If you don't like the title, change it, instead of having a hissy fit. Are you upset because the title of this section--"Majority or minority view?"--is inaccurate? Because that's not the subject of disucssion either. And, hey, way to not answer any of my arguments, and instead of engaging in actual discussion, dismiss everything I've said as the result of bias, or "COI" as you call it. (Hey, we are talking about COI! The section header wasn't inaccurate after all!) --Akhilleus (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Malcolm, you need to reread the "Close relationships" section some more.

Friedrich was a supporter of Marx, thus he would have trouble editing an article about Marx. Okay. However, the parallel to this situations is not that a Christian would have trouble editing this article - per your arguments, Christians would either be impartial or not close to the subject of this article - the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, Doherty, etc. In fact, if you want to bring up that section as something to review, it would be the atheists editing this article who need to be checking themselves — and that's even before taking into account that this hypothesis is regarded as fringe in the broad stroke of academia.

Seriously, can we stop these back and forth ad hominem's and just focus on specific passages that need to be fixed up? Every time someone tries to bring up COI, they're argument sounds paranoid and ridiculous.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it paranoid and ridiculous to point out that Christians might have a COI issue regarding Jesus being a historical person. Saying 'I am a Christian and say Jesus didn't exist' is on par of a resident of the land of Knights and Knaves saying 'I am a Knave'; it just doesn't make much sense. Part of the problem is you have too many people like Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell whose efforts to prove every aspect of the Gospel Jesus story historical reduces the pro-Historical Jesus argument to a near self-characture. It certainly doesn't help the Historical Jesus position when Richard Carrier is sent an article by a reader from an relatively obscure peer reviewed journal (The Celator) that showed Stroble's use of Vardaman as a source was Bermuda Triangle style research at its finest or that any reasonable degree of research by a layman brings into question their claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation. I think all of you who are talking about COI really mean POV. from WP:COI "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." Advancing a belief that a society or organization is POV pushing. The only people who really have a COI in this topic are those who strive to sell books or collect speaking fees on the topic, whichever side they come from. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can see where this is coming from as there is some overlap between Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and NPOV. That said the NPOV of this article is dead and has been dead for YEARS. Part of the problem like many minority views is the article's structure (for example, look at the articles on Creationism and New Chronology for similar structural headaches). Right now User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis looks like the best way to clean this train wreck of an article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Page is locked, locking horns won't help

The page is locked due to edit warring. The problem is that one side seems to want to use every stray paragraph to get in a dig against a scholarly hypothesis they disagree with and one side doesn't wnat that to happen. Based upon NPOV policy the article simply cannot be used as an attempt to advance certain editors' views in a slanted way. Simply stating that it's a minority viewpoint and having a section with criticism is all that's needed to accurately represent the criticism. Insisting that such criticism be more dramatic than that (trying to claim that no serious scholar believes it, presenting some author's opinions as if they were facts, etc.) is a violation of NPOV, and simply will not fly. It's not like one side is trying to use the article to push the view that this hypothesis is right, it's merely trying to have it explained objectively without people feeling the need to have the article insult it all the way through.

Right now, with the complete inability from one side to admit that they had any problems at all, when this page is unlocked I see no reason to think that it won't be back to edit warring again. At some point the side that wants it to be sure that people know it's a minority viewpoint is going to have to agree on a less severe way of doing so, without violating NPOV in the process and turning the article into their personal soapbox. So start hammering out the details on how to do that instead of just ignoring the other side completely so that you can try to get your POV into the article all over. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment, DreamGuy. Though I don't really ever edit Misplaced Pages, I read it often, and this is the one of the more non-NPOV articles I have seen in quite a while.

From the perspective of an outsider to the disputes contained herein, nearly every single paragraph seems to end with a refutation of the Jesus Myth hypothesis in some form or another. I understand the argument that this is because the Jesus Myth is not a widely accepted hypothesis among historians and/or theologians. But that alone does not justify such repetition as appears here. Sometimes the organization of information alone can detract from NPOV, and paragraph after paragraph of point+rebuttal makes this read like the closing statement of the defense in some landmark legal case regarding the existence of Jesus instead of an encyclopedia article.

At the very least, why doesn't someone regroup all criticism of the Jesus Myth hypothesis into one section, rather than scatter it liberally throughout the body of the article? I notice that despite two sections on proponents there is no section on opponents. Even an extremely long section of criticisms or views of opponents would be more NPOV than the current structure.

I also understand that there is, and will always be, a lack of consensus on what constitutes valid scholarship on this issue. So let's be honest with ourselves right now: it is senseless for Christians and non-Christians to argue over who is right, as nobody is ever going to be convinced of anything, especially on a Misplaced Pages talk page. Christians will think secular scholarship is biased against spirituality, and non-Christians will think Christian scholarship begs the question.

In light of this lack of consensus, might I humbly suggest that we divide this article into sections on the views of secular historians and Bible scholars on the Jesus Myth hypothesis? I suspect that these views will end up differing systematically, and their separation would in addition be convenient, as it would allow readers of the article to choose for themselves which sources they regard as credible or worthy of consideration. This, in my view, would be a superior form of organization of this article compared to the current chronological configuration. It might go: 1) Intro, 2) Specific arguments of the hypothesis, 3) Proponents' views, 4) Opponents views, etc.

Just my two cents. Thanks for listening, everyone! Indnwkybrd (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (edit: formatting)

The recent reverts focused on the lead and two sections of the article, so I'm a bit puzzled why DreamGuy is complaining about criticism in "every stray paragraph"--as far as I know, everything in the "specific arguments of the hypothesis" section has been there for awhile. I think there's consensus to remove criticisms from that section--I certainly wouldn't object. In fact, as I've said several times already, I think that entire section needs to go, and the article should adopt a chronological format, following the development of the theory from Bauer to Drews/Robinson/etc., and wind up with recent versions a la Wells and Doherty. With such a format, critical reaction to each author would be located in the appropriate section. There's a start of such a version at User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Better than my idea.Indnwkybrd (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When are we planning to exchange the draft for this article?

To be truthful, though, the best way to stop the edit warring would be for editors such as DreamGuy and BruceGrubb to stop crying "Conspiracy!" at every turn. Because honestly, DreamGuy, you are completely misrepresenting the editing dispute.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• • this isn't exactly a conflict between 'secular historians" and "Bible scholars" everyone else. True, it would be difficult to be a Christian in a traditional sense and subscribe to this hypothesis. But it is certainly possible to be a Bible scholar and not be a Christian--indeed, to be one and an atheist--indeed further, to be one and subscribe fully to this hypothesis. In the other direction, it is possible to be wholly secular and even an atheist--and even, conceivable, strongly anti-christian, and still not subscribe to it, and think the person existed and had an influence. Let's not over-simplify this, and turn it not a christian/secular controversy. Secular views of Jesus cover a very wide spectrum indeed. And their are many views on spirituality and even christian spirituality that are neither Biblical nor Secular. 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We could be suspicious of the COI of Christians editing this page, as it may seem difficult to be a Christian in a traditional sense and subscribe to this hypothesis. But you can indeed even be Christian without subscribing to that the Gospels irrefutably prove the historicity of Jesus. Faith in Jesus is sufficient. Terjen (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As DGG says, this isn't a conflict between Christians and atheists. The majority of mainstream historians, regardless of creed, regard the JMH as an strange idea (and we actually have sources saying this!). The constant insinuations of COI, against both Misplaced Pages editors and secondary sources, are a bit odd.

By the way, the article doesn't really cover it well, but some proponents of the non-historicity thesis were Christians, and hoped that seeing Christ as a non-historical figure would revitalize Christianity, or lead to a more vital form of religion. So it's certainly possible that one might be nominally a Christian and subscribe to the theory. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is however a quite possible conflict of interest if a Christian editor's religious beliefs rely on the Gospels as infallible and inerrant proof of Jesus historicity. Terjen (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On that standard, there's a possibility of conflict of interest if an anti-Christian editor's non-religious beliefs lead him or her to think that (supposedly) Christian scholars aren't reliable sources. But I don't really think this is the kind of thing that the COI policy was created for: it's essentially to prevent corporate officers and PR people from spamming Misplaced Pages, to prevent authors from promoting their books, musicians from promoting their bands, etc. Most of the allegations of COI on this article are actually allegations of religious bias, and as far as I can see are simply veiled personal attacks. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Christians may easily be begging the question when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, which may cast doubts on theologians as reliable sources. Although that problem isn't limited to Christians in a culture in which Jesus historicity usually is taken for granted. A potential COI would be if a Christian edited for the purpose of furthering or defending christian beliefs rather than get the facts on the table in a NPOV manner, perhaps by presenting the Jesus myth in a manner that makes it look like a toothless or ridiculous challenge to historicity. Terjen (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At some point, I hope that the editors working on this article will realize that not everyone who works on the history of Christianity is a theologian. People who write about the historical Jesus do so as historians. If I write a book about classical Greek religion, does that make me a pagan? Because by the logic that's employed by many editors here, writing about a religion must mean you're a believer in that religion (and are therefore automatically biased). --Akhilleus (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply that everyone who works on the history of Christianity is a theologian. Obviously, some that work in the area are theologians, for which the last sentence in my comment is meant to apply. I do not disagree that many who write about the historical Jesus do so as historians. Terjen (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Then we have no problem; Van Voorst, Stanton, Charlesworth, and the other scholars cited in the article and on this talk page are writing as historians, and your worries about theologians are not applicable in these cases. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not disputed. Terjen (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there still any will to switch this article over to the new article being developed at User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis? If so, when will it happen? I do think that the different format and tone do a decent job of circumventing some of these questions of legitimacy by presenting material more neutrally and letting the reader decide for himself what is theology and what is not, etc. 71.70.158.69 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the User:EALacey/Jesus myth hypothesis article is far superior to what exists now though it stops around 1925. It goes into the history and avoids the issues that clutter up this article and the multiple sections each with it comment that this is a fringe theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S

The article on Acharya S was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination). Consensus in that discussion was that she did not satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. So I'm surprised to see that three paragraphs with a detailed description of her work popped up here recently. If Acharya S is not notable enough to have her own article, she is not notable enough to be covered here either. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

An individual does not have to be notable enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages, to either be citable in an article in Misplaced Pages, or have a section of an article devoted to their theory. She is a minority opinion in a fringe hypothesis with very little academic respectability. The sections that cover her hypothesis need to be rewritten, not deleted.jonathon (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. To me, this looks like an end-run around the AfD; the material couldn't be included in an article devoted to Acharya S, so someone wants to put it here instead. As you note, Acharya S is "a minority opinion in a fringe hypothesis"; a full accounting of the people who are well-known in this subject (Bauer, Drews, Robertson, Wells, et al.) will give us an article with plenty of material, in which there's no reason to include non-notable persons. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the article about her failed on WP:RS grounds, not WP:N. I've cut deleted most of the material about her. After I reread "The Greatest Story Ever Sold", I'll do a rewrite, with where she differs from the others in the field --- unless somebody else does the rewrite first.jonathon (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And I've restored it. It's well cited, NPOV, and describes Acharya S's work rather than her as a person--The page failed WP:BIO and I really don't disagree with that outcome, just that her WP:FRINGE views have an appropriate place in the encyclopedia. Thus, I asked the closing administrator for help, and complied with his advice, eliminating the need to go to WP:DRV. If you're insinuating, Akhilleus, that Misplaced Pages censor all mentions of Acharya S, then your perspective on the deletion discussion differs markedly from mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whee! Accusations of censorship. Will the speculations on my motives ever stop? If Acharya S fails WP:BIO, because there are not sufficient reliable sources to establish that she is notable as a person, how is it that her work has enough reliable sources to establish that it is notable? In comparison to figures like Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and George Wells, has she made significant contributions to the literature in this area? (Note: each of the figures I just named has their own Misplaced Pages article, because they meet the notability guidelines. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)If censorship wasn't your motive--and you did delete all the Acharya S mentions from this article prior to this discussion--please, feel free to state your actual motives. The fact that the people you cite have established articles is a good reason why their contributions should be listed in summary style, not one for throwing away perfectly good content. Please, read and compare the originally deleted article to what I inserted--the three paragraphs inserted are better sourced than the and fully 1/3 is devoted to people who criticize her writings. For discussion of RS v. FRINGE, see below EC comment:

(ECx2) Re: Acharya_S sourcing. Zeitgeist's official movie website is RS, just not independent, but the entire RS debate is somewhat misguided, because while it may be oft-cited, WP:RS is simply a guideline, on the same level as WP:FRINGE. In accordance with WP:FRINGE, I've described her statements from her perspective, and then provided criticism for them, per WP:PARITY. If this is too much information compared to the other proponents listed in the article, then I would encourage other editors to expand other proponents' sections accordingly. This is a de facto merge back of the "keepable" parts of the Acharya S article, which is always preferred to deleting content.

"I'm trying to grok how "been interviewed on ..." and "repeatedly criticized by..." add anything to her theory about the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, especially since the preceding paragraphs don't provide a synopsis of her theory. Whilst well referenced, they are meaningless unless her theory is described.jonathon (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to cut down on the article space given her. Prior criticisms had to do with sourcing, so I may have gone overboard on the sourcing to content ratio. Check out User talk:Jclemens/Acharya_S and User:Jclemens/Acharya_S if you'd like to help insert appropriate references to her particular theories. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have stated my "actual motives". Acharya S isn't notable, therefore there's no reason to include her in this article. The distinction between work and person is not convincing in this particular case because to the extent that Acharya S is known, it's as an author about the JMH--and her article was deleted, implying that her work is non-notable. The citations in the disputed material--to fine sources like bede.org, youtube, Mike Licona's website, the so-called Rational Response Squad, etc. don't exactly look like WP:RS to me. To think, there was a to-do about the "actively discussed on the internet" sentence, and then someone tries to include Acharya precisely because she's actively discussed on the internet. I really don't understand what's going on in this article, but I repeat: I don't think that Acharya S is notable, her article was deleted, which is a pretty strong indication that she's not notable, and I don't think that non-notable authors need to be included in this article, when we have a plethora of notable figures such as Bauer, Drews, Robertson, Wells, and so on. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The "problem" with Archaya S, is that the major credibility she has, with the Internet crowd, and some of the proponents of The JMH. Her theory is discongruent with those of Bauer, Drews, etc. What this article should have, is a synopsis of her theory, and how it differs from Bauer, Drew, etc. All of those theories are refuted by Christian Apologists in the same manner, and using the same arguments.jonathon (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the conclusion that because her article didn't meet WP:BIO that all mention of her should be excised from the article most relevant to the positions she advocates. WP:NNC would seem to agree with me. Thank you for your explanation of your motives; while I disagree with your interpretation, I agree that censorship is an inappropriate label for your efforts, and apologize for prematurely questioning whether that tag applied to your edits. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to WP:NNC, but I disagree with the conclusion you're drawing here. Acharya S' article was deleted, therefore we can conclude that she and her work are not notable (in the Misplaced Pages sense). To include her here is to include trivial, non-notable information. As I've already said, most, perhaps all, of the citations in that section fail WP:RS--which is not surprising, if there had been reliable sources about Acharya S, her article would have been kept. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that she has pretty weak WP:RS support--but WP:FRINGE specifically exempts 'fringe' viewpoints, which I believe hers qualifies as, from needing to be represented by RS to be included. One of Sandstein's arguments in rejecting recreation of Acharya S as a separate article is that FRINGE is not a biographical standard, but a standard for reporting on non-mainstream views. If FRINGE doesn't apply to Acharya S's theories, to whose does it?

I think WP:RS ought to be more explicit that it isn't the only way to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, just the easiest. I'd like your specific comment on the Zeitgeist movie website. Granted that it's not independent, I still fail to see how an official movie website is not RS, even under WP:SPS, for the content of that movie. Jclemens (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you think WP:FRINGE is an appropriate guideline here. I agree that Zeitgeist's site is an RS, but its utility is very limited, in my opinion--basically, it's a good source for Zeitgeist, the Movie, but not for this article. It doesn't justify the 3 paragraph section that's currently here.

If Acharya S is a major part of Zeitgeist, the Movie, it seems like the best place for substantial coverage of her is in that article. I wouldn't be adverse to having one or two sentences in this article that say something like "Acharya S is a recent proponent and her views are featured in Zeitgeist, the Movie." Readers who are interested will then be able to find details at the movie's article, and presumably find their way to more information from there, if they desire it. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why make the article shorter? Is it too long as is? I'd rather see WP:SS used to include other proponents than her material be excised, and if the section gets too long it should be broken out into Jesus myth hypothesis proponents or something along those lines. Zeitgeist is simply the most notable contribution she's made--There's plenty of documentation of other presentations she's made to the black helicopter crowd. I just don't buy that she's completely non-notable, nor that anything not directly attributable to an RS needs to be excised. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to condense her first book into one paragraph, that shows how she differs from the other JMH proponents. This article is about JMH, not black helicopter crowd issues. As such, mentions of the black helicopter crowd issues don't belong in this article.jonathon (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They belong somewhere in Misplaced Pages and, differences with more traditional JMH proponents aside, this seems to me to be a better place than any other. Again, we can use WP:SS to break her stuff out if appropriate, but that raises potential WP:N issues again. Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The one problem I see with this line of reasoning is if you include Acharya S on the JMH side then you need to included people like Strobel and McDowell from the pro Historical Jesus side whose efforts to show every part of the Jesus story is historical results in works that are near self parodies of the whole Historical Jesus position. Never mind there is the portion of the JMH crowd who hold the the Jesus of the Bible is a fiction and has been so elaborated on that the connection to any historical person of that name is effectively nil.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> I have deleted the straight copy of Wiki-entry on A_S. No point in having 2 identical copies in 2 different places - defeats whole object of having a wiki in the first place! I am not sure the relevance of leaving the stub ref to A-S as "another proponent". Needs at least a relevant quote which sums up her position. I am also unsure as to her relevance as an authority to be cited. Mercury543210 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• To respond to this specific content: The Acharya S article was both 1) a copy of the text from here, and 2) copied over a redirect to this article which was the result of a prior deletion discussion. It was deleted because the editor who did that did not pursue DRV. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Acharya S has been deleted. If she's not notable enough to have her own article, I don't see the reason to list her here as a "recent proponent". Also, very few of the sources in the section meet Misplaced Pages's guideline for a reliable source. Anything that can't be reliably sourced should be taken out. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been covered above. Acharya S does not meet WP:BIO, because there are few to no sources about her life. Her work on the other hand, is fully supported here. Those who argue against her deletion from here need to deal with two issues:

1) WP:FRINGE which adds alternative notability guidelines for those not meeting WP:N. As the deleting admin pointed out, WP:FRINGE is not a biographical guideline, but a guideline for covering fringe theories in other articles, so it is directly applicable here.

2) WP:NNC Just because Acharya S's article was deleted, does not mean she has no place in this encyclopedia. WP:NNC is a subsection of WP:N, so if NNC is applicable (which it is), N is met. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens, you've already directed us to WP:FRINGE and WP:NNC before. Those guidelines might allow for the inclusion of the Acharya S material, but they do not mandate the inclusion. To include this stuff you need to get a consensus on the talk page, and right now, several editors have said that the material doesn't belong or should be drastically shortened.

Please also note that at User talk:Sandstein#Acharya_S_-_article_agreed_for_deletion.2C_now_back, the admin who closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (2nd nomination) says that what's happening here is "not usual". Normally when an article is deleted that means that the content is not suitable for inclusion in another article.

I'm having trouble seeing why you want this material in the article. All I can really see is that you think Acharya S is important for some reason--but the fact that she fails WP:BIO and that there are virtually no reliable sources that mention her indicates the opposite. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that these arguments are sounding repetitive, but I don't think it's solely my fault. We disagree about notability, so when you restate your position, I restate mine. But since you asked about my motivation, I'll be happy to give it:

I think the Jesus Myth Hypothesis is entirely stupid and incredible (using that word in the technical, rather than common, sense). The idea that there was never anyone named Jesus of Nazareth is as silly as asserting that there was never anyone named "John" born in Portsmouth, NH between 1950 and 1970. There are far more compelling and intellectually honest arguments against Christianity.

However I fully believe that she, and the other JMH advocates, deserve fair, impartial, and proportionate coverage. The facts are that Acharya S has published books, albeit vanity ones, the first of which received at least one (scathing) review in an RS. Her writings were used in a movie, which again is documented in a reliable (albeit non-independent) source. She does appearances on YouTube and Internet radio, which anyone can download, and is refuted by those who seek to undermine the JMH, and attraction of rebuttals is called out by FRINGE as a hallmark of a potentially notable fringe theory.

The only reasons I can think of for not including her are 1) That she makes other JMH'ers look bad. Can't really help that one, or 2) that some anti-JMH folks would want to remove mention of her. In her own emails to me, she suspected a conspiracy of Hindus who disliked her nom de plume. Whatever.

So given that she's not got enough RS'ing for her own article, but can be included by consensus of editors in this article, on what basis do you believe she should be removed? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> A-S is irrelevant. All the stuff cited is WP:SPS. This is completely sufficient to not include her. Mercury543210 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're simply not correct. She wrote a scathing review of her own book? I think not. She owns the Zeitgeist: The Movie website? I'm thinking... no. Can you provide a factually accurate argument for keeping documentation of her out of this article? Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were not counted as reliable sources in the deletion discussion, were they? At any rate, there are not enough reliable sources for her to pass WP:BIO, and I think that means that there are not enough reliable sources to give her coverage in this article either. Certainly there's not consensus to include the material right now. As I indicated earlier, I wouldn't object to a sentence or two about her, but the disputed material is too much. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT a response--WP:BIO is the threshold for a separate article, not for inclusion here. Regardless, please add back in whatever mention of Acharya S you deem reasonable... that would be a better starting point for discussion than complete censorship of her name. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's really not a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response--it's a very simple point: if you can't find reliable sources for something, I don't think it should be in an article. I'm sorry to see you return to the allegations of censorship; this is, or at least should be, a discussion about whether a person's work is significant enough to be included in the article. The lack of reliable sources leads me to think that Acharya S' work isn't important in this context, compared to figures like Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G.A. Wells, all of whom have multiple independent reliable sources about their work. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist and Free Inquiry constitute multiple RS'es, and the latter unquestionably independent of her. Frankly, I find the assertion that Zeitgeist is not an independent RS spurious, but it is still disputed. Acharya S lacks more reliable suitcases because, in comparison to some of the other JMH supporters, I gather that she's considered a fruitcake among fruitcakes, hence my regularly invoking WP:FRINGE. I have no issue with someone else writing more about the others--rather, I'd encourage it. I'm not an Acharya S fanboy, I'm much better characterized as a mergeist. I find the anti-Acharya S arguments uncompelling. "Censorship" in the context I used it referred to the effect, rather than the goal. Unless there's been a new edit since I started composing this, there is no mention of her in the article at present: de facto censorship.

At any rate, I await your inclusion of a more modest mention of her. Failing that, I'll make my own tomorrow, lest it be considered a fourth revert.

And lest it get dropped by the wayside... I shared mine: what are your personal motivations? Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions vs Conclusions

I am concerned about the possibility of confusing the assumptions and conclusions of cited scholars supporting the historicity of Jesus. Specifically, some scholars may make the assumption that Jesus was a historical person, yet we may present it as their conclusion, or at least use it as part of the appeal to authority argument in defense of historicity. It's a reasonable assumption for a scholar in the Humanities to assume a priori that Jesus was a historical person (like we quote Frazer affirming) - they may do that with other characters in recorded history too. But that doesn't mean historicity is the scholars conclusion based on critical research. Although I have argued that Christians aren't strictly required to believe in historicity, it's likely that a theologian will assume historicity, making them less reliable as authoritative sources. Terjen (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is painting Theology with too broad a brush. For example, "Rebuting Missionaries" by Hayyim ben Yehoshua makes the claim "In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu." If true this would put a Buddhist, Shinto, or Taoist theologian on a different level than a Christian theologian (On a side note, Confucianism strictly speaking is not a religion but a philosophy though Westerners sometimes forget that.)

That said I think the appeal to authority nonsense in this article is lessening. The one sentence Ad hominem blurbs by Grant and Campbell are now gone and things to some degree are improving.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"However, in anthropology the situation appears to be different..."

I've reverted this addition by BruceGrubb, where he cites an article by Roland Fischer, because it's not legitimate to conclude that the entire field of anthropology holds an opinion based on a single article in an out-of-the-way journal. On his talk page, Bruce indicates that this paper is not widely cited, which suggests that it's not a notable or influential contribution. Reading the article suggests that it never will be notable or influential: it's confusingly written, demonstrates very little familiarity with the literature on the historical Jesus, and on p. 17 appears to say something directly opposed to what Bruce thinks the article says:

Who was then "Jesus the Jew"? Was he a fiction that became flesh or was he of flesh and bones to become narrative fiction? Jesus, the Galilean Jew, was independent-minded, unscholarly (compared with Jerusalem Pharisees), "charismatic," a hasid, exorcist, healer, popular teacher--in short, a remarkable and in many ways admirable representative of a known type of first-century Judaism. It was a type not much approved of by official Judaism, and totally ignored by subsequent Christian dogmatism (Vermes 1983:15-29).

Note the citation to Vermes, a noted scholar on the historical Jesus--Fischer seems to endorse Vermes' picture of who the real Jesus was, which is pretty different than the claim that there's "not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived..."

Of course, given BruceGrubb's track record on this talk page, I believe we're entitled to wonder whether he read any of Fischer's article beyond the abstract. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering YOUR track record regarding Grant quoting other authors I would not be the one to throw stones, Akhilleus. Furthermore you are misrepresenting what my talk pages says. I do NOT say the 'that this paper is not widely cited' but rather "Crosschecking via link anthrosource shows only one paper that uses a "Fischer, Roland" as a reference and than is Tara W. Lumpkin's 2001 "Perceptual Diversity: Is Polyphasic Consciousness Necessary for Global Survival?" which as the abstract shows deals with perceptual diversity beyond that through everyday waking reality." I make NO connection that this is the same Fischer, Roland that wrote the earlier paper nor do I state that this is the paper that is referenced. You are making claims about things that are not even stated to try and salvage your position.

Also I see you happily skipped the earlier part of the article which says "It is not possible to compare the above (several quotes regarding Jesus by several authors) with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." It then talks about the Testimonium Flavianum cutting off the public accessible part of the article just before it gets to the part where the forgery statement is cited. Now that certainly doesn't support the idea that Fischer supports the idea of a historical Jesus that is different than that of the Gospels. If Fischer was arguing along those lines why use the term 'historical' rather than 'Biblical'? To put it simply, your logic fall down and go boom.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also we should note that one person does not represent the consensus in "anthropology", and his reliability depends on the relevance of his own expertise and of the journal. The fact that a journal is a reliable source for one topic does not meran that it is for another. The Journal of Consciousness is presumably of value for that topic, but not for ancient history, gardening tips or anything else. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fischer, judging by his other publications, seems to be a psychologist who came to prominence in the 1960s, with an interest in psychedelic spirituality, altered states of consciousness etc and is linked to New Age writers. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

All I see is an thinly disguised Ad hominem with more smoke and mirror than David Copperfield and nothing addressing the actual statement made in both the abstract and the body of the text available to any non-AAA member (that is American Anthropological Association not American Automobile Association) who doesn't want to cough up $12.00 to read the whole thing. I also see you have in some totally inconceivable way confused the Journal of Consciousness Studies (ie "Journal of Consciousness") with the Anthropology of Consciousness; these are totally different publications with the Anthropology of Consciousness being connected with the very prestigious American Anthropological Association. Regarding Roland Fisher, I tried to see if I could pull up anything about him before adding this and got over whelmed by the number of Roland Fishers I found: a businessman, Roland L. Fischer who published "A Palearctic Springtail, Lepidocyrtus paradoxus Uzel, Found in North America (Collembola: Mydontidae)" in 1964; a Roland L. Fisher PHd. who is a professor a Ohio State's College of Medicine and College of Optometry and Departments of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, a German photographer of that name, a mathematician of that name whose lecture notes connection mathematics and anthropology may be online, one cited in the book The Anthropology of Experience from a 1971 paper, and well you get the point. There is nothing that connects these various people named Roland Fisher together other than their name. You may have found a Roland Fisher who published for the "Journal of Consciousness" (sic) but there NOTHING connecting him to the Roland Fisher I sited. The fact you can't even get the name of the publication right makes me suspect your research on this matter is next to nil.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce, you're not addressing many of my or Paul's points. Let's try again:

• The journal is about the anthopology of consciousness, not the history of religion; the article might be an ok source for the psychology of religion, but the journal is not the kind of place you'd look for an article on the history of Christianity.
• Fischer appears to have no particular expertise in the history of Christianity. For all your kvetching, Bruce, it looks like Paul has found the correct Roland Fischer, although he's was a experimental psychiatrist/pharmacologist (not a psychologist), and is certainly the person whose bio appears on this page (the address given in Mallorca is the same as that on the cited paper). Interesting career, but there's nothing there to suggest that Fischer is an expert on the history of religion.
• Fischer's main argument "that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" is that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. In support of this Fischer cites Emil Schürer's The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, and notes that he's relying on the original German edition of 1890. Is it possible that someone's written on this topic since 1890?
• Also note that Fischer provides no arguments of his own on the authenticity of the Testimonium, but relies on other sources. Hasn't this page been the site of interminable complaints about Michael Grant's (alleged) reliance on "statements that are not his own"? How is this different?
• Fischer doesn't seem familiar with the vast amount of scholarship on the historical Jesus. His material on the Testimonium is one example, the fact that he only cites Vermes in answer to the question "Who was then 'Jesus the Jew'?" is another example.
• On the other hand, Fischer cites Vermes in such a way that makes it look like there was a historical Jesus--I reproduced the quote above. This is a direct contradiction to what Bruce claims the article says. (I'm still wondering whether Bruce has read the full text of the article, or just the part that's accessible to non-subscribers.)
• Ok, so I misunderstood what Bruce was saying on his talk page. That means we have no evidence that this article has been cited by subsequent scholarship, and no evidence that it's had any impact within the field of anthropology or anywhere else.

So, basically, this is an article written by a non-expert, that doesn't engage with most of the recent literature on the topic, that doesn't seem to have had a significant impact on the field, and that doesn't say what BruceGubb wants it to say anyway. I see no reason why we should use it. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, you don't want to use it because it disagrees with the POV you've been clearly pushing in this article for ages now. You don't get to remove cites to reliable sources just because you disagree with them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, DreamGuy, that's not what I said. It would be nice if you read my post and bothered to respond to my arguments, instead of labeling me a POV-pusher. (What POV are you accusing me of, by the way?) --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Without particularly addressing the Fischer quote, historians and theologians aren't the only scholars relevant for the entry: anthropology is also an applicable field. We are thus not limited to quoting journals on the history of Christianity, and it is not reasonable to throw out the Fischer quote based on his article being published in a peer reviewed journal of anthropology. Terjen (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say I endorse the removal of the quote. It is obviously a misplaced random soundbite that doesn't add any value whatsoever to a discussion of the "Jesus myth hypothesis". Also, no serious historian would subscribe to the wild comment that "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived". Compare this to "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character called Brian born next door to Jesus lived", which is a true statement to appreciate that we do indeed have such "shreds" for Jesus, even if they aren't beyond doubt. --dab (𒁳) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If the statement wasn't in a peer-reviewed journal you would have a point, BUT it does appear in a peer-reviewed journal which puts it at high man on Wiki's Reliable sources totem pole. I should add that comparing Fischer to Grant is apples to oranges. Fischer is making his statements using quotes to back them up in a peer review journal while Michael Grant's "quotes" were in a 1977 popular book published by Charles Scribner's Sons and Scribner for the 1995 edition and were really verbatim quotes of the conclusions of Otto Betz What do We Know about Jesus? which was published by S.C.M. Press--a religious book publisher, and Rodney Dunkerley Beyond the Gospels which was published by Pelican Book in 1957 and Penguin in 1961. The quotes attributed to Grant were in fact two other people using publishing houses that really didn't meet the wiki guildlines for reliable sources. In a nutshell the Grant quotes were an argument from authority using Grant's credentials and Scribner's reputation to foster on to us what were really the claims of two other authors who credentials were unknown and nobody knew how those authors got to their conclusions.

I should mention that by the logic you are presenting we should all believe there really was a John Frum who showed himself to the Vanuatu people in the 1930's because there are shreds of evidence to this effect. How about the shreds of evidence that Erich von Däniken produced that Earth was was visited by aliens? Better yet how about all the shreds of evidence that JKF was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald but rather a) the Russians, b) the CIA, c) the Mob, d) Castro, or some mixture of a through d? The reductio ad absurdum of these positions should hammer home the idea that accepting "shreds of evidence" of questionable value is not good science regardless of it being physical or social. Miner demonstrated with his "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" that sometimes the very model you use to study something can have a profound effect on the interpretation you come out of the study with. Much the same thing happened with the African Kinship model being the model for all 'primitive' people; it turned out that many of the 'fits' were due to certain bias inherent in the model or in the anthropologists who tried to fit what they saw to the model. Let me say that no "serious" historian should accept any document as an historical record without evaluating it first but it seams everyone has their own idea on the quality of the Gospels (canonal and non canonal), who may have written them, when they were written, and so on. There are so many variables that it is not funny.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who haven't followed the tedious and interminable complaints about Michael Grant (occupying major portions of archives 12-15), let me point out that BruceGrubb is seriously misrepresenting what Grant says, to the point where I have to assume that he hasn't read the quote in question, but is rather relying on this criticism by Earl Doherty. Despite what Bruce says, Grant makes substantive arguments against the JMH, in particular against Wells' version of it (see this post by EALacey). The quotes from Betz and Dunkerley are rhetorical coloring, not building blocks of the argument--his argument would be unaffected if the quotes were absent. The argument that Grant is merely parroting other sources is pure BS.

Also, Bruce's characterization of Betz and Dunkerley is wrong. Otto Betz was certainly an expert on early Christian history and theology, so anything he published on these subjects easily meets the standard for a reliable source. Of course, What do We Know about Jesus? was published by SCM Press, which Bruce characterizes as a "religious book publisher", but is probably better described as "the UK's best-known publisher of academic theology." SCM's website goes on to say: "Many 20th Century bestsellers carried the SCM name,as did the first English translations of pioneering continental theologians such as Barth, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, Moltmann and Schillebeeck." This press is clearly of high quality, and its publications obviously satisfy our criteria for reliable sources and verifiability. (Of course, Betz's work was originally published in German, but I don't know which press.) As for Dunkerley, I can't find much information on his qualifications, but Penguin is a fine press, and Jesus Beyond the Gospels is widely cited in academic literature, so it's also a reliable source.

As for John Frum, who's of questionable relevance here, there almost certainly was no person named John Frum who manifested himself to the people of Tanna, but it seems like there was someone who claimed to be John Frum who was involved in the beginning of the cult (the Misplaced Pages article says it was a man named Manehevi). There's the distinction between the John Frum of faith and the John Frum of history, if you like... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual quotes used in the wiki article were not Grant but rather than Grant quoting Betz and Dunkerley. The fact those quotes are no longer used in this article should tell you what the consensus on their quality was. If you google SCM books you get "SCM Press - buy religious books online" and "SCM Canterbury Press - buy religious books online; Religious Book Publishers" as your first hits and if you go to SCM Press' main web page and open the source for their web page you will see why Google is producing such wonky results: "meta name="description" content="Religious Book Publishers. Buy books now using our secure online ordering" In short, via the meta code that web browsers use as descriptors SCM press is presenting itself to John Q. Surfer as "Religious Book Publishers" not as 'academic theology'; never mind that "well-known" doesn't always translate to "scholarly'. Also, Akhilleus, cuts off his quote before it get to the kicker: "We are also keen to provide accessible and rigorous text books, reference books, and other high-quality resources for students and clergy alike. Furthermore, SCM Press' other imprints are Canterbury Press ("a fast-growing supplier of popular religious books, resources and gift stationery for the general, religious and church markets.", Epworth ("With roots in John Wesley's 'Christian Library', Epworth publishes 10-12 new titles a year on the Bible, worship, contemporary Christian issues and Methodism"), and REMP ("Books and resources for school Religious Education and Collective Worship." The COI SCM Press has regarding the Historical Jesus issue is clear to anyone who looks deep enough.

Let us not forget Dunkerley though in his effort to salvage Otto Betz and totally miss the point about John Frum Akhilleus seems to have. The key point is that in conflicts between Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources the first takes precedence as explained on Verifiability: "For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." Furthermore, Verifiability states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials." (emphasis mine). Now notability only becomes an issue regarding self-published material which acceptable by established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. (emphasis wiki's)--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good lord... Some editor is seriously trying to claim that "Also, no serious historian would subscribe to the wild comment that "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived"" -- If you are so out of the loop that you not only don't realize serious historians HAVE and DO say this, then that's your bias coming through and nothing else. The quote is by a serious historian. If you choose to insist that the person isn't serious because you disagree, then you are setting yourself up as the be all and end all of what counts as serious or not. That's completely against about five different major Misplaced Pages policies right there. It's a reliable source saying something pertinent to the article. Whether you disagree with it or not doesn't matter. In fact WP:NPOV policy is quite clear on this. Your circular argument that no serious scholar says something and if someone says it they must not be a serious scholar is just an incredibly obvious logical flaw. An intellectual bias can't dictate the content of this article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. If you really are so seriously out of the loop that you believe the JMT to be significant among historians then I suggest you read some literature on the topic. Are you also so seriously unware of the content of this debate that you think this individual is a historian? Raise this issue on the Reliable sources noticeboard if you wish, and check policy. A reliable source on one topic is not on another wholly unrelated one. Paul B (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We would love to read some peer reviewed journal quality literature on the Pro Historical Jesus, Paul so why not provide some references of that type of literature that has been written in the last 20 years? --BruceGrubb (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Van Voorst, Charlesworth, Burridge, and Stanton are cited in the article, wrote in the last 20 years, and are experts in the field. I'm sure someone is going to complain that they didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals, but instead went with fly-by-night outfits like the Oxford University Press, W. B. Eerdmans. Apparently, there's some clause I missed in WP:V or WP:RS that says that academic monographs by well-known experts aren't as useful for us as articles in journals outside the subject. Was that in the fine print somewhere? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul please tell us just what part of peer reviewed journal quality literature didn't you get? By the kind of logic you and Akhilleus are presenting we should take Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman's claim's regarding micro lettering on a certain coin as the truth especially since John McRay uses it despite David Hendlin having wrote "Theory of Secret Inscriptions on Coins is Disputed," The Celator 5:3, March 1991, 28-32) which question the claims Vardaman was making and then Richard Carrier produced a picture of said coin in "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's magic coins: the nonsense of micro graphic letters - Critical Essay" in (of all things) the Skeptical Inquirer. Can't use David Hendlin because he isn't an expert in archaeology while Vardaman and McRay are experts in archaeology, can't use Richard Carrier either as he isn't a scholar and certainly because the only pictures are coming from Skeptical Inquirer and self published web page. Anybody else see the apparent ridiculousness, utter insanity, and near Bermuda Triangle Planet Twilight Zone logic of this position?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• NA-Class Christianity pages
• NA-importance Christianity pages
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• NA-Class Atheism pages
• NA-importance Atheism pages