Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:11, 19 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christ myth theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk.

Christ myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 6, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept February 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed February 21, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 3, 2010 Peer review Reviewed April 12, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 10, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted June 20, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Christianity: Jesus Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Selected archives by topic: Definition - FAQ discussions - POV tag - Pseudohistory Additional info: Quotes on the historicity of Jesus - Quotes on the ahistoriciy of Jesus - Christ myth proponents I - Christ myth proponents II

On 1 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Jesus myth theory. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Lede is too long

@Joshua Jonathan: WP:Lede "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead."

Lede is currently 6 paragraphs.

"the lead section is an introduction ... and a summary of its most important contents."

Lede contains: "... in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty"; Isn't this detail that should be further down in the article?

The lead section should be "well-composed".
It currently introduces the concept in the first paragraph,
then debunks it ("In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus ... denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles") in the 2nd paragraph,
then gives some history ("Mythicism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, ...") in the 3rd,
then gives its arguments ("Proponents broadly argue ...)
then gives a different summary of arguments ("Most mythicists employ a threefold argument ... ) in the 4th paragraph
then in the 5th paragraph goes back to debunking ("Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory ...")
and finally in the 6th goes back to history ("With the rise of the internet ...")

This is good organization?

I attempted to to trim and reorganzie the lede and was reverted by Joshua Jonathan, who told me "Please discuss at talk". -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: thank you for opening a talkpage-thread. Regarding your edits diff:

• "as a rule of thumb" - but not always;
• The lead does summarize the most important points;
• We give two, slightly different definitions, because there is not a single, tightly-knit definition; the second definition is a definition give by one of the most prominent proponents, as cited by one of the best-known Biblical scholars;
• I agree with you that the scholarly rejection of the CMT should be at the end of the lead - as it is. The second paragraph introduces the conclusion of the socalled quests for the historical Jesus, plus the remark "in contrast." But the clear rejection comes at the end. The sentence " however even before this, denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles" was overdone, I think; I've just removed it;
• Paragraph 4 and 5 may be repetitive indeed; good point;
• I've added "While rejected by mainstream scholarship" to the last paragraph, as "popular reception" is a separate topic in the body.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed image

I have removed the image of the resurrection of Jesus. Inclusion of such an image unnecessarily and incorrectly implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected. If an image is required, use one that more accurately reflects the difference between the mythicist view and the secular view. For example, an image depicting Jesus' baptism, ministry or execution, without religious iconography or supernatural imagery, would be more appropriate.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

implies a mainstream secular consensus that Jesus was resurrected - serious? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What would be the problem with using a picture that is more in line with the mainstream consensus? It is indeed misleading to use a picture that is not consistent with the secular consensus and instead implying that denying the resurrection is ‘just some mythical view’.—Jeffro77 Talk 10:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have troubles following your arguments. Your invocation of "secular consensus" is unclear to me; why should a picture have to reflect a "secular consensus," and what is this "secular consensus" anyway? I think that most people don't care if th resurrection 'really' happened. I also don't see an " that denying the resurrection is ‘just some mythical view’." Weé talking here about the question of there was a historical Jesus, which is denied by mythicists. Resurrection, and all the other supernatural elements, are not part of discussion on 'real or not'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You have demonstrated quite well why a picture depicting the resurrection is not necessary. The resurrection isn’t representative of the subject of the article. Presenting the resurrection at the top of the article as something ‘denied by mythicists’ is not an honest or neutral representation of mainstream views about the resurrection. It strains credulity that you don’t understand what the mainstream consensus is about the historicity of Jesus. We both know you’re well aware that the only points of widespread consensus are that Jesus was baptised and executed. So why exactly is it so important to depict the resurrection?—Jeffro77 Talk 11:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is easily resolved. Here are some appropriate neutral images. Which one should we use?

Wdford (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Of those, the 1, 2, 3 or 5 would be good options for depicting the historical Jesus without unnecessary supernatural elements (don’t need to dwell too much on the interpretation of the dove or God’s approval though they can’t be established as historical).—Jeffro77 Talk 22:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the CMT, all of the story of Jesus is mythological, so I don't see the logic of using a picture of one of the two elements of the life Jesus deemed most likely by mainstream scholarship to be historical, to illustrate the CMT.

The present picture does not " that denying the resurrection is ‘just some mythical view’"; that's your personal interpretation. The caption of the present picture is quite clear:

The Resurrection of Christ by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1875)—some mythicists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising deity.

Mainstream scholarship rejects this comparison with contemporary mythology; 'mainstream secular consensus' seems to refer to the vox populi, which is not what the CMT is contrasted with. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point Joshua Johnathan. Dying-and-rising deity parallel is a common point in CMT as to what Jesus really was. He existed in a mythical realm only, never on earth. CMT is not just denial, but an alternate theory too. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not even a slightly good point. The view that Jesus was not resurrected is a mainstream view—the view, in fact, of all non-Christians. The subset of that view that the resurrection is a standard 'risen deity' motif is also a mainstream view, being the view of all non-Christians sufficiently familiar with the concept, including those who otherwise accept the historicity of Jesus without supernatural elements. (The question of whether Christians borrowed that concept from earlier ancient stories is an irrelevant distraction.) It is quite misleading to weaselly attribute something as the view of "some mythicists" that also overlaps the view of others who aren't mythicists. The image for the article should be specific to the Jesus myth theory, and should not falsely convey that it is a 'fringe view' that Jesus was not resurrected. It will save everyone a lot of time if Joshua Jonathan stops pretending not to understand this.--Jeffro77 Talk 07:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A more neutral image and caption would be of something that is widely regarded as historical but uniquely denied by mythicists—for example Jesus' baptism. A suitable caption could say something like Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Jeffro77, you're pushing your personal opinions. Please stick to the scope of this article: the fringe CMT, and scholarly views on the historicity of Jesus and the CMT, not your assumptions about 'mainstream views of all non-Christians'. And no, "The question of whether Christians borrowed that concept from earlier ancient stories" is notan irrelevant distraction; it's a central element of the argumentation of the CMT-adepts, famously defended by the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule'. And no one here but you is arguing that "it is a 'fringe view' that Jesus was not resurrected." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop pretending I have suggested something unreasonable. The view that Jesus' resurrection is a myth is not unique to mythicists. I have suggested a completely reasonable alternative that clearly represents the unique position of mythicists as contrasted with the mainstream position that avoids all of this nonsense:

A more neutral image and caption would be of something that is widely regarded as historical but uniquely denied by mythicists—for example Jesus' baptism. A suitable caption could say something like Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed.

It is not clear why you would object to a picture and caption that unambiguously points to the contrast between the mythicist and mainstream positions without misrepresenting either position.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's indeed clear that it's not clear to you... "Stop pretending I have suggested something unreasonable" is not a sign that you understand my objections; it looks more like you want a discussion only on your terms, that is, a non-discussion. And "Jesus myth theory proponents reject the mainstream consensus that Jesus was a historical person who was baptised and later executed" is non-informative, a mere duplicate of what's already stated over and over again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox in the lead should provide information that represents a general overview of the article subject. It isn’t supposed to introduce nuanced specifics, and certainly not in a manner that misrepresents the subject by conflating the views of “some mythicists” with that of other non-mythicists.—Jeffro77 Talk 09:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I tweaked the contentious caption slightly to resolve the problem. Wdford (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but such specific detail is still not what images in the infobox in the lead are for. It should be something more generally representative of the article subject. The resurrection simply isn’t representative of the subject as it is not something uniquely denied by mythicists.—Jeffro77 Talk 10:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with you about the non-uniqueness. However the dying and rising deity myth is actually a good example of what CMT is about for some mythicists. So with this wording (which could use a bit more polish), this image could work here. Wdford (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Something that is true for only “some mythicists” is definitionally not representative of the general subject.—Jeffro77 Talk 12:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also link this article to the article Monty Python's Life of Brian? The film is a good example of what other mythicists contend may have happened. Wdford (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Brilliant! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A big part of the problem with an article about the CMT is that different mythicists have different views on what the CMT actually is. Some contend that the entire Christian religion is based completely on a pure myth, originally cooked up deliberately to compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. Others contend that the Christian religion is based on one of the many historical Jewish "messiah-men", onto whose real life and death were slathered many layers of mythical material, so as to deliberately compete with the similar myths being sold (successfully) by "rival" religions. This second position is also held by many mainstream scholars, although some other mainstream scholars with a Christian bent pretend that only the first CMT position exists, which they loudly denounce as "fringe" and "pseudo-scholarship", and other mainstream scholars seem to think the slathering all happened by "accident" and that the resemblance to the rival religions is all just co-incidence. Try finding an image to cover all of that? PS: I was happy with the caption on the original image, and I would be happy to reinstate it, although we can certainly strengthen the caption to make it clear that only SOME mythicists hold the dying-and-rising-god position. Wdford (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

All of which is alleviated by my perfectly reasonable suggestion of contrasting an accepted mainstream view about an event such as Jesus being baptised with the consistent mythicist view that Jesus wasn’t a historical person. Simple, accurate, and properly representative of the subject, without misrepresenting other aspects that are not unique to mythicists nor the view of all mythicists.—Jeffro77 Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool. So choose an image, add a caption, and let’s polish it up. Wdford (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. You can grab it from the history if it gets reverted to the image and description that aren’t properly representative of the subject.—Jeffro77 Talk 14:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not necessary or accurate to add “some”. All mythicists necessarily by definition reject the position that Jesus was a specific historical person, irrespective of whether they think he was completely made up or based on a composite of various other people.—Jeffro77 Talk 20:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "definition" covers the views of Wells, Thompson or Price? Certainly all mythicists agree that the Christ of Faith in the gospel stories is not an accurate historical person, but certainly some of these proponents accept that there may well have been some facts from some historical person/s underneath all the layers of fiction? Wdford (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording is quite specific. Alternative beliefs about ‘some other person/s’ are necessarily not the historical Jesus. The separate concept that Jesus is historical but was not a supernatural ‘Christ of faith’ is a mainstream view and is not mythicism.—Jeffro77 Talk 23:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The sky is blue and the Earth is not flat

*Misplaced Pages:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue

*Misplaced Pages:You do need to cite that the sky is blue

The separate concept that Jesus is historical—but was not a supernatural ‘Christ of faith’, the Lord God of Christian devotees—is a mainstream view in scholarship and of virtually everyone who is not a Christ devotee. 2db (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't even have to mention that the sky is blue. The next line already says "The mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus." The sentence "and of virtually everyone who is not a Christ devotee." is not a summary of the article, and completely WP:UNDUE here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Not WP:UNDUE here because this article is bizarrely named so as to conflate the Lord God of Christian devotees with historicity. Correctly rename this article! 2db (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Q5 already shows that there is no consensus on the matter. The common agreement between all is that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Evans/Wreight: "No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria. Though this may be common knowledge among scholars, the public may well not be aware of this." Ehrman "As I have repeatedly emphasized, different scholars come to radically different conclusions about how to understand the life of the historical Jesus...Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large - disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was." Levine ""No single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most, scholars; all methods and their combinations find their critics as well as their advocates." Ramos1990 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

And this is how certain editors continue (ad infinitum) to preserve the appearance that mainstream scholarship accepts that the Divine Christ may have been a historical figure. Subtle, but also blatant. Wdford (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The suggested text was indeed unnecessary, as the lead already indicates with a more appropriate tone that only some fairly mundane aspects about Jesus are recognised in the mainstream consensus. However, it is also a fact that this article is poorly named, with a false implication that it is just the view of ‘crazy mythicists’ that Christ (with all the implied supernatural baggage) didn’t exist. This misleading position for the article title is maintained under the guise of ‘oh well, it’s just the common name’, though there is no serious reason it couldn’t be called ‘Jesus myth theory’.—Jeffro77 Talk 04:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Repetition

Adaptations of the following text were pasted no less than three times in different subsections of the article.

As a contemporary of Jesus, Paul is a key source for the historicity of Jesus because the content he records goes further back to the mid 30s AD, very close to the time of the crucifixion, when he converted and documents not only a full outline of Jesus life throughout his works that parallels the Gospels, but also that he personally knew eyewitnesses of Jesus such as his most intimate disciples (Peter and John) and family members (his name="Adams94" /> From Paul's writings alone, a fairly full outline of the life of Jesus can found: his descent from Abraham and David, his the betrayal, numerous details surrounding his death and resurrection (e.g. crucifixion, Jewish involvement in putting him to death, burial, resurrection; seen by Peter, James, the twelve and others) along with numerous quotations referring to notable teachings and events found in the Gospels. The existence of very early references by Paul on the life of Jesus are sufficient to establish that Jesus existed and him knowing key eyewitnesses helps further.

These have been reduced to including the information just the once, in the appropriate subsections. I have also reduced the verbosity and the presentation of hearsay as if it were 'biographical information'. For example, saying Jesus' lineage was 'through Abraham' is irrelevant because all Jews are supposedly descended from Abraham (whose historicity is contested as best). Also, including Jesus' purported resurrection (for which there is no mainstream consensus) which is based on hearsay and religious superstition in Paul's letters should not be presented as 'biographical information'.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC) Jeffro77 Talk 02:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

These sources cited actually state that these are biographical information from a contemporary, not hearsay. They focus on how Paul saw Jesus from his own letters and also in relation the gospels, not how you or modern people or modern scholars view Jesus. Furthermore, Ehrman writes and emphasizes the early interactions of Paul with Jesus brother and important disciples that go back to at least 36 AD, to show that Paul's information on Jesus definitely preceded the writing of his letters. The sections this was added in were relating to Paul. So I will restore some of this, per the sources, that merely talk about how Paul saw Jesus. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Paul never met Jesus, so any information about Jesus from Paul is hearsay by definition. Also, all Jews are supposedly descended from Abraham, and all people are 'born of women'. Don't restore tediously mundane aspects just because are significant to a particular religious belief.--Jeffro77 Talk 05:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Again. This is from Paul's views, not our modern views. Anachronism is the word. And Paul's interactions with eyewitnesses is emphasized by Ehrman against mythicists, who flat out deny there is any early source attesting to Jesus. Also, Paul considering him being born of a woman and being related to people like David and Abraham ground him as a person who was clearly believed to have existed. That is the point that scholars make when they mention such mundane content (e.g. Tuckett mentions "Paul clearly implies that Jesus existed as a human being ('born of a woman' Gal 4.4), was born a Jew ('born under the Law' Gal 4.4; cf. Rom 1.3) and had brothers (1 Cor 9.5; Gal 1.19)..."). Considering that we are dealing with mythicists, who deny Jesus was ever on earth or that no sources link him to earth, such common sense you think exists, is not common to them. Read the mythicist section below in the article right now is says "Robert Price says that Paul does not refer to Jesus' earthly life". They deny mundane. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of the mythicist view, the mainstream view is that Jesus existed as a normal person. It remains redundant in the mainstream view that Jesus was 'born of a woman', and it remains redundant from a Jewish traditional perspective that Jesus was 'descdended from Abraham' (which is not the mainstream view because the historicity of Abraham is 'in doubt' (at best)).--Jeffro77 Talk 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened on the road to Damascus then? ViolanteMD 11:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems you're asking that question to imply that Paul did meet Jesus. But the two inconsistent stories in Galatians and Acts about Paul's 'conversion' are not regarded as fact in the mainstream view, so the question isn't relevant. Maybe it was only ever a story. Maybe Paul had some kind of episode that he interpreted as seeing Jesus (consistent with an epileptic temporal lobe seisure). But it is not necessary to speculate, and the absence of knowing exactly what did happen (if anything) is not evidence that there is some 'supernatural' explanation (argument from ignorance).--Jeffro77 Talk 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What inconsistencies are you referring to? Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, what do you mean Paul's conversion isn't regarded as a "mainstream view"? Even among scholars and historians (who do not represent most believers) there are differences of opinion about this topic.

Dismissing Paul's account entirely requires explaining away a significant amount of historical evidence, including his dramatic change in behavior and the early church's acceptance of him after his period of persecuting Christians.

Belief in Paul's account isn't ignorance. Many well-educated people, including scholars, find his testimony credible based on historical and textual analysis. ViolanteMD 12:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In depth analysis of Paul's 'road to Damascus' story is out of scope at this page. But as an example (which I'm kindly providing without any obligation to discuss further), Acts and Galatians are inconsistent about where Paul went immediately after his supposed vision of Jesus.

Argument from popularity is fallacious. And it is also dishonest to conflate Paul's conversion with the 'road to Damascus' story of Paul's conversion. And nor did I say I 'dismiss the account entirely'. Paul was opposed to Christianity, and then changed his position. There are similar 'testimonials' from people of various denominations today who were previously violently opposed. It is unremarkable and not evidence of any supernatural experience.

I will not discuss this tangent further.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss and provide context. You're right that an in-depth analysis of Paul's conversion story is beyond the scope of this article but I think we can improve the article by addressing a few points around NPOV. I don't think you can categorize over a billion people as "ignorant" because you don't agree with them. ViolanteMD 12:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You should immediately retract the lie that I called Christians "ignorant". An argument from ignorance is a specific type of fallacious reasoning, not an accusation that people are 'ignorant'.--Jeffro77 Talk 12:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of "argument from ignorance" as a logical fallacy. I apologize for my misinterpretation.

I'm not sure this fallacy actual applies here though. The argument from ignorance fallacy seems to imply that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa. In this debate, both sides are making positive claims based on their interpretation of evidence, not arguing from a lack of evidence. Christ myth proponents aren't simply saying Jesus didn't exist because His existence hasn't been proven. They're questioning the reliability and sufficiency of available data.

What do I do to make it right, strike it through? ViolanteMD 12:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. I was quite clear in my original statement about what I specifically classified as an argument from ignorance: "the absence of knowing exactly what did happen (if anything) is not evidence that there is some 'supernatural' explanation".

You can strike out comments by putting <s> and </s> tags around the text. I am going to bed and will not reply further.--Jeffro77 Talk 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the 'argument from ignorance' and how to use strikethrough. I've corrected my earlier misinterpretation. However, I still have concerns about characterizing the beliefs of a billion people as a logical fallacy, and I still don't believe it applies in this context. ViolanteMD 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Please go back and re-read what I actually said until you understand that I did not 'characterize the beliefs of a billion people as a logical fallacy', which is itself a fallacy of composition because not all Christians (with over 30,000 denominations) have exactly the same beliefs.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV is clear, this is a claim and as such we should only say it once. It does to matter how many people believe it, what matters is what experts think. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I was about to leave a comment about reviewing this article for NPOV but we should probably land on what "expert" means in this context. ViolanteMD 12:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

OK per wp:sps anyone who is an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So to me that would be theologians and Biblical scholars mainly with some specialist historians. ViolanteMD 12:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As long as they are " published by reliable, independent publications" (so no church publications) maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about disqualification of "church publications" but duly noted that sources from those bodies will be critiqued to a higher standard than those from academic bodies. ViolanteMD 12:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"independent publications", I.E. not part of the body of which they speak (after all they are talking about opinions held by their church). Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

How then do we handle groups that are closely aligned with or drive by the people they represent or advocate for? I rely pretty heavily on WPATH on the LGBT side of things and NAMI on the mentally ill side of things for example. ViolanteMD 13:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Attribution, we do not say it is a fact, we say it is an opinion. We also say it once, not repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation! ViolanteMD 13:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Islam 1.907 billion adherents, is everything they believe true?

Hinduism 1.152 billion adherents, is everything they believe true?

Having over a billion believers does not mean anything. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples. I don't think "true" or "false" is relevant to describing a belief structure in a[REDACTED] article. The article either accurately describes what the belief is or it doesn't.

I agree that the number of adherents doesn't determine factual accuracy. My point was that it's odd to label anything as "mainstream" if it doesn't reflect the belief of the group itself. I'll work on reading through the article carefully when I have free time though and improving NPOV. I know I can count on the careful review of any edits I make. Thanks for the discussion! ViolanteMD 14:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are thinking about this article in terms of mythicism versus Christian belief. However, the correct contrast is mythisicm versus mainstream scholarship. It is not the purpose of this article to attempt to defend Christian interpretations.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 Baker Academic ISBN 0805444823 pp. 441-442
2. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 Baker Academic ISBN 0805444823 pp. 441-442
3. Eddy & Boyd 2007, p. 209-228. sfn error: no target: CITEREFEddyBoyd2007 (help)
4. Edward Adams "Paul, Jesus and Christ" in The Blackwell Companion to Jesus edited by Delbert Burkett 2010 ISBN 140519362X pp. 94–98

Requested move 5 January 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Christ myth theory be renamed and moved to Jesus myth theory. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Christ myth theory → Jesus myth theory – Recommending this move per reading an ongoing discussion on the MoS talk page (specifically, this section). As this is about whether the historical Jesus of Nazareth existed (and not solely whether the idea that he was the Christ was a myth), should we not change the title accordingly? GnocchiFan (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning SMcCandlish, Tamzin, Remsense and Ham II as participants in the MoS discussion discussed earlier. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Actualy this seems to be about both, both his existence as a person and as a Christ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support. First off, this article being titled "Christ myth theory" is (subtly, and to a particular audience) proposing that the idea of Jesus not being the Christ (a foretold particular prophet of the Davidic lineage) is "just a theory/myth" (i.e., it is taking a stand, in a dog-whistle manner, advancing a particular position about part of the content of the article). Second, it's clear from the opening sentence and from the sources that exactly "Jesus myth theory" is one of the common names of the concept the article is about (and it is almost entirely about a particular take on the historicity of Jesus question, only secondarily involving the Christ question at all, and only in some versions); and also clear that the rest of the names of it that are common enough to mention in the lead also use "Jesus" not "Christ". So, I find multiple reasons to support this move and none to retain the current name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It turns out that the factors that led to Old Testament Minimalism (archaeological reevaluation, tradition criticism, etc.) are also operative in Jesus Mythicism, which ought, in fact, to be called “New Testament Minimalism.” I expect, or suspect, that the wheel will keep turning and that Jesus Mythicism will sooner or later gain similar acceptance—not that I'll ever live to see it. I’m not even rooting for it. To me, it’s just a fascinating subject. And I’m far from alone in this. The contributors to the present collection are creatures, eccentrics, like me. And, though we are few (at least at present), there is a surprising range of theories among us. And I think it will always be this way, because that’s the way it is in scholarship.

As you are probably aware, today’s mainstream Jesus scholarship is quite diverse. Many theories have attracted dedicated partisans, people who conclude that the historical Jesus was a revolutionist (Robert Eisenman, Peter Cresswell), a feminist (Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Luise Schottroff), a Cynic sage (John Dominic Crossan, F. Gerald Downing; Burton L. Mack, David Seeley), a Pharisee (Harvey Falk, Hyam Maccoby), a Hasidic master (Geza Vermes), a shaman (Stevan L. Davies, Gaetano Salomone), a magician (Morton Smith), a community organizer (Richard A. Horsley), an apocalyptic prophet (Bart D. Ehrman, Richard Arthur), and so on. It would be easy and tempting for an external observer to shake his head and to judge that all these Jesus reconstructions, though a pretty good case can be made for most of them, cancel each other out. If this one is as likely as the others, why choose any one of them? Well, of course, you have to look into them all (if you want to have the right to an informed opinion) and then make your own decision. But most likely it will be a tentative one—as it must be if you want to be intellectually honest. Your conviction should not be stronger than the (fragmentary and ambiguous) evidence allows.

If someday Jesus Mythicism should dominate the field, I’m afraid this predicament would not change. As this book will make absolutely clear, there are just as many Mythicist theories. Some believe that Jesus was a fiction devised by the Flavian regime in order to pacify Jews who had the nasty habit of violently rebelling against Rome. Others argue that Jesus was a Jewish/Essene version of the equally mythical Gautama Buddha. Another option is that Jesus was, like the Vedic Soma, a mythical personification of the sacred mushroom, Amanita Muscaria. Or perhaps Jesus was a historicization of the Gnostic Man of Light. Was Jesus a Philonic heavenly high priest figure? And there are more. I believe you will find yourself surprised and impressed by the cogency of these hypotheses. Once you probably regarded all these theories (if you ever even heard of them!) as equally fantastic. After you've finished Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?, you may very well find them equally plausible. And who says you have to settle on any one of them? It’s worth the mental effort to grasp and weigh each one. I say, let a hundred flowers bloom!

---

--Robert M. Price (2021). "Introduction: New Testament Minimalism". In Loftus; Price (in en). Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press.

--2db (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have read this source and just wanted to note that it does reference Christ Myth Theory in numerous places . Robert Price himself uses CMT in his books. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Cherry picking. The book uses the terms "Christ myth" and "Jesus myth" in various places. The specific expressions "Christ myth theory" (7 times, 3 of which refer to the title of a book) and "Jesus myth theory" (6 times, 2 of which refer to the title of a book) are used about equally.--Jeffro77 Talk 02:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the book uses "Christ myth" and "Christ myth theory" means it continues its historical terminology (more than 100 years) by proponents themselves. That was my point. It continues to be the common name they use. CMT is a common denominator. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact is that the book uses both terms equally, and the relevant policy states that "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past" so your appeal to historical usage is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 Talk 03:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's not clear to me how the linked discussion is relevant to the topic of the CMT, except that in this case "Christ" and "Jesus" can't be separated; in the view of CM-theorists, there is no Jesus apart from the mythology of Jesus/Christ, nor is there a distinction between 'Christ-mythology' or 'Jesus-mythology'. Regular scholarship may make a distinction between an historical Jesus and Christ-mythology (mythology, not myth), but that distinction does not apply here. Apart from that CMT seems to be the most common name. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the linked discussion is not relevant to this article because Christ Myth Theory is not an arbitrary title. It is a theory of more than 200 years with proponents themselves using it in their works. For instance, Arthur Drews - "The Christ Myth" (1909), Robert Price - "The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems" (2010), Neil Godfrey - "Understanding the Hostility to the Christ Myth Theory" blog post (2019), numerous mythicists in a recent collection of christ myth theories (Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?. HYPATIA Press. 2021 ). Historical scholarly references of it can be found ranging for more than a century too (e.g. "The Christ Myth Theory: Its Service to the Understanding of Christianity" J. R. Arkroyd (1922) and "R. Wipper’s Religious myth theory" Weber D. I. (2017)). Mainstream articles such as this (2018) still refer to the theory by that name too. As do recent scholarly articles There are other terms used informally (and inconsistently) but the long legacy of the theory is the main reason why this article is called the Christ myth theory. This article already mentions other monikers too in the lead. If anything the other monikers like "Jesus myth theory" or others can be redirected to this article. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - the current title misrepresents the views of mythicists and also misrepresents scholarly views of the historical Jesus. Whilst the mythicist view is that Jesus (and Christ by necessity) is mythical, it is only the view of Christians that Christ is not mythical. The ambiguity is favoured and perpetuated by Christians because it falsely implies that viewing Christ as a myth is 'just the view of crazy mythicists', and argued under the guise of it being a 'common name' without proper consideration of WP:NPOV.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - the current title misrepresents the views of mythicists and also misrepresents scholarly views of the historical Jesus. Whilst the mythicist view is that Jesus (and Christ by necessity) is mythical, it is only the view of Christians that Christ is not mythical.

Among devotees of Jesus the Lord Christ scholarship on the question of the historicity of Jesus:

• A historical Jesus is a possible solution.
• A mythical Jesus Christ (perhaps even as a "Noble Lie") is a possible solution.

But

• A fictional Jesus is irrational and not a possible solution.

The original meaning of "Christ mythicist", was someone who like David Strauss asserted that the historicity of a Jesus second-god was false. But in the modern era, it has now evolved to mean someone who believes in the literal truth of the myth of a second-god as set out in the epistles and gospels of the New Testament. A similar example would be "unicorn mythicist", being someone that asserts that the existence of unicorns is true.

The historicity of second-god was held to be true under pain of death for much of the earlier history of the Christian world and during much of the latter it would likely affect ones career prospects to assert that it was not true.

That the historicity of second-god is false; is now the majority opinion of most secular scholars, yet there is a quixotic passion among some to continue using the term "Christ myth theory" when there is no secular position on Unicorns or second-god Lord Christ meriting a theory of historicity. --2db (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Neutral I would personally like the new name as more scholarly accurate, but that goes against WP:COMMONNAME. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. I know it's a bit silly, but precision doesn't come into it. Since most people discussing/debating this topic use "Christ" rather than "Jesus", we should go with the current name. Obviously, the proposed name is a suitable redirect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment A few editors defer to WP:COMMONNAME. However, it states: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; ... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." It also states, "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use." (formatting from original). Google Books provides 14 pages of results for either "Christ myth theory" or "Jesus myth theory", so the argument that "Christ myth theory" is the common name in use is simply false.--Jeffro77 Talk 23:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment

ost people discussing/debating this topic use "Christ" rather than "Jesus"…

No peer reviewed work published in an academic press since 2020 that cites any 2016 or later WP:RS published secondary sources on the historicity debate use "Christ" in preference rather than "Jesus" as the primary common label of the debate. --2db (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, considering that's the year when a recent major source was published on the subject. It's kind of like saying that there are no post-1991 sources referring to the USSR in the present tense . I'm quite literally able to find way more peer-reviewed works that use "Christ myth" than "Jesus myth" from the last couple years. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I also see peer reviewed sources on christ myth theory even into 2024 on google scholar. Aside from the mythcists themselves using it in 2021 in "Varieties of Jesus Mythicism". Ramos1990 (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

1. List the Academic Press and date published.
2. List the 2016+ WP:RS secondary sources cited in the work that are relevant to the historicity debate.
3. List the word count in the work for "Jesus" and "Christ".

--2db (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those parameters are relevant to Misplaced Pages naming conventions. There is absolutely zero reason to exclude material that references 2016 or early work. Look below for three examples:

• Savchenko, Irina A. (December 2023). "Science and ideology in the Soviet capital discourse of religious studies: dichotomous analysis". Studies in East European Thought. doi:10.1007/s11212-023-09605-2. Note terminology being "historicity of Jesus" and "Christ myth".
• Cusack, Carole M. (September 2022). "". Journal of Religious History. doi:10.1111/1467-9809.12866.
• Gupta, Nijay K. (October 2019). "". Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology. doi:10.1177/0020964319857612b.

There are many more openly available on the Misplaced Pages Library. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean "Look below for three examples" of a Red herring 2db (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an obvious case, so much so that anyone saying support needs to familiarize themselves with core Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OR. If a name is well established, it doesn't matter whether individual WP users feel the name could be improved. We go by sources, not opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

PS I also think 'Jesus myth theory' would be a more accurate name of what the theory is, so I do not dispute the arguments. If that name becomes the common name in the future, we should of course move the article. We just are not there yet. Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I have directly quoted WP:COMMONNAME demonstrating that it is entirely appropriate to use another common name for the article.—Jeffro77 Talk 21:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

2020+ WP:RS per the Jesus (a)Historicity Question

1. Carrier, Richard C. (2023). On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Vol. "One" (Revised ed.). Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 9781914490248.
2. Forthcoming second Vol.: Carrier, Richard C. (2025). On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Vol. "Two". Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

• Chapter 7 : “The Mistaken Invention of Docetism"
• Chapter 8 : “Why Romans 1:3 Cannot Demonstrate a Historical Jesus”
• Chapter 9 : “Why Galatians 4:4 Cannot Demonstrate a Historical Jesus”
• Chapter 10 : “All Baptized Christians Were the Brothers of the Lord"

--2db (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This strikes me as definitionally fringe. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This strikes me as definitionally an example of a Red herring. -- 2db (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@2db: The book was panned when it was first released in 2014 (see ). This rerelease from a press of uncertain editorial quality is not going to be an improvement. Carrier is as fringe as they come. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Carrier's extraterrestrial Jesus from outer space hypothesis is certainly fringe. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• Mid-importance Mythology articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Requested moves