This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BruceGrubb (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 8 April 2009 (→Title of this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:58, 8 April 2009 by BruceGrubb (talk | contribs) (→Title of this article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Christianity: Jesus B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Atheism B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
|
Argument from silence
The main problem I have seen with Argument from silence idea is the tendency to assume that the canonal Gospels are completely accurate historical documents. Some people even go as far as to include all the supernatural stuff (three hours of darkness, all the dead being raised, etc) happened and then ask why didn't anyone note this down at the time?
Not that the counterarguments often presented are any better. Argument from silence is often presented as a logic fallacy but then you see it used to counter ideaa like the Sphinx being 2,000 years older than it is thought to be. The main contention is where is the evidence for the culture that supposedly built the Sphinx if it is that old and yet when the exact same criteria is applied to Jesus it suddenly is dismissed as "Argument from silence"? Something just not right with that kind of thinking.
Another problem with refutation attempts of "Argument from silence" is the tendency to strawman the idea by referring to people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Nero. It gets really silly when comparisons to Queen Elisabeth I, Shakespeare, or Eisenhower are made. Most of the people presented have good solid contemporaneous evidence (statues, coins, mosaics, and in the case of Julius Caesar letter to, from, and about him) showing they existed. Better comparisons as Joseph Campbell did in Hero with Thousand Faces would be Apollonius of Tyana, Buddha, and Krishna whose contemporary evidence is in as bad or even worst shape than that of Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- By argument for silence in the to-do list (which I assume is what you are responding to), I meant something like Robertson or Doherty's top 200 (link to top 20). The early Christian writer's silence on aspects of Jesus' biography, where you would otherwise expect elements of the biography to appear. I can change the name in the to-do list.
- What we are covering now is things like contemporary writers. What influences the Christ myth crowd it seems to me, is the lack of biography in early Christian writings. In other words during the 1st century and for most writers in the 2nd, Jesus is spoken of like a mythological being not a historical being. jbolden1517 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- There was something like this back when we had a section on John Remsburg who was removed because few scholars make reference to his list or to his ideas on the Christ myth in general. I reworked the relevant parts and put them on the page on John Remsburg and provided it below so you can see the problems it had with regards to this article:
- "In recent years a list of names from the "Silence of Contemporary Writers" chapter of The Christ (often called the Remsburg/Remsberg list) has appeared in a handful of self published books regarding the nonhistoricity hypothesis by authors such as James Patrick Holding*, Hilton Hotema*, and Jawara D. King*, as well as appearing in some 200 blog posts on the nonhistoricity hypothesis.
- However at best The Christ along with The Bible and Six Historic Americans is regarded as an important freethought book* rather than a major contribution to the Christ Myth hypothesis."
- = a reference is provided for this.
- However at best The Christ along with The Bible and Six Historic Americans is regarded as an important freethought book* rather than a major contribution to the Christ Myth hypothesis."
- To date I have not found anyone who would qualify under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources who even make a passing reference to the Remsburg|Remsberg list. I have found others than those listed above but they also have the problem of not being scholars and being self published:
- Norman, Asher (2007); Ashley Tellis Twenty-six reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus Black White and Read Publishing pg 182
- O'Hair, Madalyn Murray (1969) What on earth is an atheist! American Atheist Press, Austin, Texas Page 246--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Title of this article
I would say that of the four terms we currently have (Christ myth theory, Christ myth, Jesus myth, and nonexistence hypothesis) nonexistence hypothesis is is the best title for this article as it is the most descriptive of the position. The others have problems in terms of being less clear:
Jesus Myth
We are starting to get some feedback loops here. Toit, Morné Du (2008) Blind Faith Lulu on pg 159 uses a definition that a cross reference to Icon Group International's Aware: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases reveals to have partly come from Misplaced Pages. Worse unlike Icon, Toit doesn't tell us this. This makes his later "The term "Jesus myth" actually covers a broad range of ideas, but fundamentally, the all have in common is the basis that the story of the Gospels portrays a figure that never actually lived." suspect.
Both Weaver and Mack use this term regarding Jesus Christ in comparative mythology rather than in reference to the ideas presented by Drew or the others. That Wells in a book called Jesus Myth accepts the Q Jesus as historical doesn't help nor does Doherty stating that Wells is still saying a Gospel Jesus didn't exist.
Christ myth
This term is a full blow mess. Sure, it is the English transitional of Drews' book but it is also used to talk about the story that grew up around an historical Jewish preacher named Jesus. Nothing even resembling a consistent definition here.
Christ myth Theory
Has much the same problem as Christ myth only to a smaller degree. Boils down to four versions:
- there was no Jesus in any way, shape, or form in the 1st century CE (Farmer, Horbury, and Wiseman)
- ANY deviation from the Gospel account (Bromiley's "story of")
- The idea of Jesus starting out as a myth regardless of connection to any historical person (Walsh)
- Pre existing mythology connected with a historical person who may or may not have lived in the 1st century CE (Dodd, Pike, Wells per Price and Doherty, Farmer read a different way)
Of course we have to ask where the concept of the nonexistence hypothesis as Null hypothesis fits into all this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NAME. Christ myth theory is the most commonly used name for the subject of this article. In contrast, "nonexistence hypothesis" is used by one person (Van Voorst) who writes about this. Misplaced Pages readers are much more likely to be looking for "Christ myth theory" (or "Christ myth" or "Jesus myth") than "nonexistence hypothesis".
- Of course, Bruce's contention that there are "four versions" of "Christ myth theory" is wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to non existence. Most of the authors we discuss don't assert full non existence. What they assert is non dependence and the lack of a meaningful historiography. To use a line from the 2007 version which IMHO explained the difference well, The analogy being made here is that Steamboat Willie was the first widely distributed Mickey Mouse feature and it was based on the Buster Keaton movie Steamboat Bill Jr. which while fictional was not mythical. Finding historical persons who were the basis for Steamboat Bill Jr. would not be equivalent to finding the "historical Mickey Mouse" This case really works well since 0 people believe in a historical Mickey Mouse, yet we can clearly see real historical references in Steamboat Willie. I see 3 of the 4 definitions you gave above (good list) as being the same, they all deny the "meaningful historicity" of Jesus. Obviously the Bromley one is an entirely different definition.
- Earl Doherty is a super clear case: believes that Q1 might be based on a historic person (a cynic philosopher in Galilee) and Q2 is based on a historic person (John the Baptist). Any title which would seem to exclude Doherty is too strong. Non existence hypothesis then at least verbally describes a position which few if any of these authors hold. I haven't read everyone on your list but, Acharya S and a few of the 19th century authors come to mind. Did the Peter of the Pauline epistles know Jesus? If the author's answer is yes, then they go under mainstream scholarship is they answer no they belong here.
- And I think you are overstating the case to argue that Wells in Jesus Myth sees Jesus as historical. Again he is quite clear that the connection between Paul and Q is just that both utilize ideas from wisdom literature. Someone who argues that Pauline Christianity developed without a historical founder is asserting not denying that Paul views his Jesus as a myth not a recently deceased person. And this is the distinction between Mack and Wells that IMHO is really critical.
- I hate to go back to the lead sentence but "The Christ myth theory is the assertion that Christianity developed with a historic core" seems to me to unite 3 of the 4 definitions nicely. As far as Christ myth vs. Christ myth theory vs. Jesus myth; I'm neutral. jbolden1517 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem which shows Akhilleus' claim my contention is "wrong" is itself incorrect is that Horbury and Wiseman expressly state that the Christ Myth Theory is Jesus NEVER existed while Dodd and Pike give vague definitions which are by their nature very open to interpretation. Bromiley definition with its "story of" and use of Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russell is also problematic. As far as "overstating the case to argue that Wells in Jesus Myth sees Jesus as historical" that is NOT me but rather Van Voorst which is totally at odds with the way Price (with more published scholarly papers then you can shake a stick at) uses Christ Myth theorist for Wells' current theory and Doherty (already used 13 times as a reference in the article as I write this) uses the term Jesus myth theorist in direct reference to Jesus Myth. Trying to say Doherty is not a good reference for Wells' position at this stage of the game would at best be POV pushing and at worst hypocrocy and statement PROVES that the term Jesus Myth does vary.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)