Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 21

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

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.

"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 [1]

• Graham Gould – Church warden and treasurer [2]

• Robert E. Van Voorst – ordained minister [3]

• Graham Stanton – Divinity faculty Cambridge (the best of the bunch but hardly impartial) [4]

• Michael Grant – scholar but very broad base (the gospels were not his speciality) – can’t find confirmation of the atheist bit. [5]

• 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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.

Bruno Bauer

The article seems to have Bruno Bauer's view completely wrong. Below is a statement from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (an excellent source) [6]

Bauer likened the present crisis to the end of the classical world in Roman imperialism. His studies in the 1850's located the origins of Christianity in the second century A.D., concluding that the first gospel was written under Hadrian (117-138 AD), though slightly predated by some of the Pauline epistles. Bauer traced the evolution of Christian ideas from Hellenism and Stoicism, deriving the logos doctrine of John's gospel from Philo and neo-Platonic sources. As in Herr Dr. Hengstenberg, he denied that Christianity had emerged directly from Judaism. More than in his early work, though, he now stressed the revolutionary power of the early Christian religion, as a source of liberation for the excluded and impoverished elements of the Roman Empire. His final book described Christianity as the socialist culmination of Greek and Roman history. Responding to this argument in his very positive obituary of Bauer, Friedrich Engels acknowledged the importance of Bauer's late work for the socialist critique of religion (Sozialdemokrat, 1882). In 1908, Karl Kautsky's book, The Origins of Christianity, applied Bauer's thesis.

The presentation of Bauer needs to be re-thought. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that a better presentation of Bauer's--and everyone else's--views needs to be made. Unfortunately, Bauer's work seems not to have been translated into English, so unless someone who's fluent in German steps up to the plate, we'll have to rely upon secondary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Bauer's theories can be better presented, which is why it is all the more puzzling that you have cut out entirely the summary of them! What Engels says is not contradicted by what the quotation says, which also refers to Philo as the source. It's just a matter of when one places the concept of 'origin'. Paul B (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have it completely wrong about Bauer. As the source above says, Bauer thought that much of Early Christianity was formed by Stoic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, and the only importance of Philo in that was as a source of Stoic and Neo-platonic thought -- because so many of the other Hellenistic texts had been lost. It is well know, for instance, that the early Christian philosophers Clement and Origen were strongly influenced by both philosophical traditions. This seems to have been Bauer's point, and not that Christianity was somehow founded by the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, Philo (which would have been an absurd claim). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not absurd, and it's perfectly consistent with what all sources say about Bauer's views. Read the 1911 EB. I can't really make sense of what you are saying here. You seem to forget that this is a quotation from a contemporary of Bauer's. Here's a useful summary [7]. There is also a newish book on Bauer, which I've just looked at and which I've footnoted. Paul B (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul B, this is the paragraph you excerpted in so unfortunate a way:

In his paper Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity, Frederick Engels writes, "Bauer studied this question [the origin of Christianity] until his death. His research reached its culminating point in the conclusion that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about 40 A.D. but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle." Into the Genesis account of creation, Philo interposed Ideas between God and the material creation: God first created his blueprint, as Platonic Forms; then, using them, he created material reality. The Platonic God was synthesised with Yahweh, Reason with Revelation, the Bible providing insights into God's Blueprint (Forms) which were often not attainable through Reason. The Aryan Vedic concept, which was also that of the Greek "heroic" age, is of linear time, in one's personal life, but without the whole of human history being seen as a linear, teleological salvation-history culminating in a utopia. The notion of time as cyclic, both on a cosmic scale and through personal reincarnation was accepted into later Aryan thinking, like the god Shiva, as an influence from the subject non-Aryan population of India. From there it spread to the Pythagoreans, whom Plato followed. With Philo's fusion, the Platonic tradition abandoned the concept of time as cyclic, expressed in its acceptance of reincarnation, for the Judaic (originally Zoroastrian) linear concept of time as "salvation history". The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion says that Philo's contribution to the beginnings of Christian theology led to his being ignored by later Jewish scholars. Augustine continued the synthesis pioneered by Philo.

Clearly what is being said is not that Philos founded a religion now called the Christian religion. (Philo was a religious Jew and had no interest in founding a new religion.) What is said in this paragraph is that Philo, because he tried to reconcile his Jewish religion with Greek philosophy (particularly Stoicism and Neo-Platonism) gave a model for the early Christians to work with. The founding of Christianity was not the work of Philo, he simply gave a means to fuse Jewish thought with Greek pagan philosophy....which, to Bruno Bauer, was the actual nature of Christianity. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know perefectly well what the passage says. That's why I linked to it. Nowhere does this article say that Philo "founded" the Christian religion. Engels says that, according to Bauer, Philo was the "father" of it. The argument is that Philo created a link between the Greek concept of logos and Jewish tradition, which was the basis for the ideas that became Christianity. The whole point is that in this version Chrisianity starts essentially as a philosophical, ethical and political ideal that later gets a mythic story about a founder woven into it. I don't believe this, of course, but that's what Bauer argues. He's developing the Hegelian model initiated by Feuerbach and mixing it with Aryanist myth-theory of the time. What I find difficult to understand is that you say you want more information abot Bauer, but all you have done is delete a perfectly accurate quotation. I readded it and added more explanation. Paul B (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what is said in the article:

...Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who concluded "that the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who was still living about A.D. 40 but was already very old, was the real father of Christianity, and that the Roman stoic Seneca was, so to speak, its uncle".

The wording gives the impression that Philo founded the Christian religion, and that needs to be changed. Is that asking for too much? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he was a Hegelian, and the rest is a quotation from Engels, a contemporary. It's not contradicted by any other source. Paul B (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also when the passage is read in context of the paragraph it is clear that Bruno Bauer didn't think Philo founded Christian religion only that Philo's idea were used in its formation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what the current text in the article says. So what's the problem? --Paul B (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The only "problem" is people reading meanings into words that are not there in first place which is easy to do if the sentences they are part of are taken out of context. This is what worries me about some of the supposed references we have in this article. Do they say what is claimed about them or when put back into context do they indicate something else?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the person who's complained for months about the Grant quote without ever bothering to go to the library and read the passage where it came from?----Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, may I remind you were the one who had to be informed that Grant was in fact quoting two other people and even after being told that you continued to defend the quote even though you had been told that fact by Peterdgi. Right before that 24 November 2007 post but below your signature is this statement "Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grant, so I cannot say what page the quote comes from, or who he's quoting." (have no idea who really wrote that). Later on, E4mmacro on 4 February 2008 provides a better quote showing where each part and you, Akhilleus, on 4 February 2008 stated "BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else." If you didn't know that then clearly you hadn't read Grant either. Also given I kept pointing out that part of the Grant quote seemed to come from Betz and you still defended it even though it stated both quotes came from Dunkerley even though you had responded to a post clarifying which quote came from whom was irresponsible. The fact of the matter was Grant didn't reference who the 'first rank scholars' and given no one to date had produced a single name whose these 'first rank scholars' were.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, gee Bruce, you are the one who added the quotation from Engels in the first place without giving any context whatever to it. Malcolm then insisted that I'd done it ("this is the paragraph you excerpted in so unfortunate a way") and all this after explanatory detail had been added that no one had bothered to read before arguing the toss. This is the most bizarre page I've ever known for conspiracy mentality and contradictory accusations of POV, in which the same action can be seen as POV for or against the JMH; adding criticisms in one section is a POV attack/quotefarm and distributing them is a POV attempt to constantly undermine the theory. Paul B (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Paul, since you're a "Christian religious nut", everything you've done must be POV. That seems to be the way things work around here. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice selective memory there, Paul Barlow, but the quote from Engels was to replace the totally erroneous statement regarding that the "true founder of Christianity was an Alexandrian Jew, Philo". The early passage totally misrepresented Bauer's position by calling Philo the "founder" of Christianity rather than its "father"; the former implies a far more active role for Philo.

As for conspiracy mentality both sides have a good dose of that especially at the more extreme edges the the debate. There were certainly political and social agendas in play as to which books (and which versions of those books) became part of the Bible's canon in both the Old and New Testaments.

The BBC/A&E show "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition" showed how these factors can color the view of something even during height of its power. To ignore that some form of editorial process likely went on with the New Testament's books and that certain Church leaders had agendas that would encourage them to exaggerate or even outright lie is insanity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, so no selective memory at all. The previous sentence was not ideal either - but it was derived from Drews' own summary of his precurors, so it actually came from a JMH proponent. The point is that improvements can be simply made without instant resort to fantasies about hidden agendas. As usual, the rest of yo comments simpy meander off topic about irrelevancies to do with "certainly political and social agendas in play as to which books (and which versions of those books) became part of the Bible's canon" and the Spanish Inquisition! Paul B (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were familiar with Binford or Dunnel you would know that what I am doing is similar to what is used in system theory anthropology to draw analogies between certain aspects of events. If you think I meander you should read Binford sometime; the man has great ideas regarding system theory anthropology but could due with a refresher English course mainly the part concerning the introductory paragraph. Back to the main point, 'hidden agenda' is a loaded term. It implies a conscious effort something Miner (1956) and later Cole, Dunnel, Kirch, Wenke, Charlton, Meltzer, Davis, Naroll, Simmons, and Schroder (1960's through 1980's) showed may not be the case. Sometimes as demonstrated by Miner the very model you use will bias your results (taking the Gospels as accurate historical documents would be one such biased model and this one shows up a lot). Cole's paper on Cult Archeology is especially relevant as it contains statements that can be applied to BOTH sides of the Historical Jesus issue even though it focused on other aspects of Cult Archeology and Anthropology then popular (ancient astronauts and seemingly every Old World culture before Columbus discovering the New World). Looking around I stumbled on "The Gospels As Historical Sources For Jesus, The Founder Of Christianity" by Professor R. T. France. However the whole paper depends on the Gospels being 1st century eyewitness accounts something the Pro Historical Jesus site Jesus Police has issues with citing an interesting mixture of both Pro Historical Jesus and Jesus Myth authors and putting the Gospels as being authored in the 2nd century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this self-regarding bombastic tosh is getting to much for me. It has long been apparent that you are mostly here to luxuriate in the sound (or rather sight) of your own voice. For all your name dropping you seem to know rather little about the actual history of this theory. Quote from reliable sources, realise that reliablity is not determined by you, but by the status of the source. If you have something useful to add about France do so. But note that other authors that you don't like cannot be rejected because the Great Bruce has decided against them. Comparisons with theories about the discovery of the New World and whatever else that may come into your head may satisfy your own sense of your mental acuity but do nothing and tell us nothing unless those comparisons have been made by reliable sources. Of course France is firmly within standard scholarly norms, as his conclusion clearly asserts: "The four canonical gospels will not answer all the questions we would like to ask about the founder of Christianity; but, sensitively interpreted, they do give us a rounded portrait of a Jesus who is sufficiently integrated into what we know of first-century Jewish culture to carry historical conviction, but at the same time sufficiently remarkable and distinctive to account for the growth of a new and potentially world-wide religious movement out of his life and teaching." Paul B (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, resorting to name calling is not going to change the fact that most of the so called Pro Historical citations are vague quotations with not a lick of real evidence, full of weasel words that wouldn't last 10 seconds in a true peer reviewed article, depend on unproven assumptions, make utterly insane leaps of logic (Van Voorst regarding Thallus: He admits Thallus is third hand but he uses him anyhow), or so insanely out of date as to be laughable. Then you have the extreme edge trying to prove everything in the Gospel as historical all the while violating the key aspect of Occam's razor. Finally you have for lack of a better term the minimalists who in a nut shell say the Gospels are wild exaggerations with a few mythical elements thrown in for good measure. The problem with that view is you are left with the question of how much is historical fact and how much is added from else where or was simply made up. As far as reliability is concerned as I have mentioned before what is really needed in this area is a historical anthropologist. A good hard look at how the Romans viewed history (like how political was it) and how easy they were to accept claims of supernatural powers needs to be done. Any information regarding how oral tradition was handled is also needed for a proper evaluation of the Gospels both canon and otherwise. There is a lot that really needs to be covered before anything can really be said about Jesus as a historical figure it need to be said by anthropologists. Also we really need to clean up the references so that we don't have a cascade of broken ones if the wrong one is removed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

More on scholarly response

The problems with the "Scholarly response" section of the article here [8]. You will notice that Akhilleus was in favor of removing it, and there were no objections. It is a quote farm, and POV too. It had been my hope to save it by improving it, but I have not had the time. There is no justification for leaving it the way it is, so I am removing it. If an editor wants to restore it to the article, after improving it, that is OK with me. (There is also more discussion of that section here [9]) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be perfect but to simply excise it is absurd. Correct it or leave it to others. As for POV, well that's been very heavily discussed and settled in this page. Mercury543210 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been heavily discussed, and although the section is known to be problematic, it remained unchanged. Basically it is a collection of Christian scholars saying they believe in the core story of their religion, and pretty much saying the same thing. I am not interested in claiming one side is right and the other side wrong, but I do object to the effort to portray the sources on one side as "scholarly" and the sources on the other side as "fringe". It is exactly that which is POV. The fair approach would be to refer to scholars on one side as representing the majority, and the other as the minority. Is that asking for too much? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change it to "critical response", then there's not much justification for keeping out any prominent responses, whether they are academically supported or not. If we leave it as "scholarly", it encourages the addition of opinions from reputable scholars from both sides of the argument - if it is too difficult to find those for one side of the argument, that's not POV, that's simply evidence that that side is badly supported.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually such a section would be called "Criticisms", and many articles have such a section. The sources for the criticisms must be qualified sources. On the other hand, Akhilleus said that he thought it would be better to disperse the criticisms to various parts of the article where they best apply (without a separate criticism section), and I think that would be OK too. What is not acceptable is to have a section called scholarly response, as though there are no scholars who support one version or another of the Jesus myth hypothesis. That is POV. But I have no interest in an article in which this subject is protected from criticism, and that is not what I am trying to do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, if you intend to distribute the criticisms as Akhilleus suggested, then why haven't you done so? So far as I can see almost your only edits to this article have been deletions of chunks of referenced text. All you have done is chop out things you don't like by claiming consensus based on one comment, the recommendations of which you have not even followed. It's easy to slash and burn, but more difficult to make real improvements. However, on the centeral issue, this section is about general scholarly attitudes to the central claim of the JMH, not specific criticisms of specific arguments, so as far as I see it can't reasonably be disributed and it is not comparable to "criticisms" sectionsPaul B (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus was going to do that, not me. As far as I am concerned it is OK with a criticism section too; as long as it is called a criticism section, and as long as it is not a quote farm...which it now is. It had been my intention to add more to the article, but do not now have the time to work on an article that is of secondary interest to me, nor do I enjoy the editing environment of this article with Christian religious nuts who are not embarrassed to behave badly in an effort to poison this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to reconsider the phrasing "Christian religious nuts". It's not exactly a good way to characterize your fellow editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For your information I am not religious at all. I am certainly not a Christian believer. I am a historian interested in ethno-religious ideas in the 19th and 20th century. I didn't see you adding a single useful word about Bauer's theories, for all your argumentiveness on the talk page. And now apparently it's down to Akhilleus to recover information you just wanted to eliminate ("Akhilleus was going to do that, not me") and distribute it. I see. Paul B (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think it justified, take it to the administrator's notice board. In any case, I have no doubt that the religious views of some editors are such that they present a WP:CONFLICT, and prevent rational editing, no matter what they say to the contrary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this section as a quote farm. It can use some copyediting to transform it into a few paragraphs that call out prominent authorities and summarize their points and reasoning, instead of a bulleted list of quotes. But the essence of the content, i.e. the names of the scholars, their points, and the citations, should be retained. Bertport (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance:

• Michael Grant does not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that "Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit."

• Graham Stanton writes "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

• James Charlesworth writes "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ...", [71], and, 'It would be foolish to continue to foster the illusion that the Gospels are merely fictional stories like the legends of Hercules or Asclepius. The theologies in the New Testament are grounded on interpretations of real historical events, especially the crucifixion of Jesus, at a particular time and place."

• R. T. France counters that "even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost"

The above, in a relatively short section, is more than enough to qualify the section as a quotefarm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Only France is useful. Michael Grant has been shown to notoriously sloppy using quotes from two previous authors and not supporting their quote with evidence. Doherty has this to say about The Gospels and Jesus: "Graham Stanton's 'case' against Wells' position is little more than a citation of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny (discussed below)—and an appeal to the authority that comes with the majority's acceptance "that Jesus existed."". James Charlesworth uses weasel words with NO supporting evidence to his claims. This renders them as useless as the quote by Grant originally used in the lead in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Scholarly whinge section

Each of the comments referred to particular aspects of the JM so are better in their respective sections. Criticism sections are not of much use to a reader - it is better to balance each topic as it is covered. Sophia 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sophia. You have improved the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sophia, though I prefer to read the pros and cons separately, in this case this does seem to resolve the arguments. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a movement earlier that having the criticisms in those sections (such as "Early proponents") was detrimental to those sections and seen as an attempt to "destroy the argument at each turn and poison the article against it", to grind it into the dust? Is this no longer a problem? What is the position on having anti-myth quotes throughout the article, now?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Each section should be a balanced explanation of the JM case - not quite sure what your point is. If you see this as a green light to "apologetics" it out of existence then I would suggest you stick to Zelda. Sophia 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"The article has been edited, and I don't know its current state, but at one point the claim that scholars as a whole oppose/reject/refute or whatever was included in three separate sections: the lead, the proponents section, and the controversy/opponents section. It strikes me as sounding like someone wanting their opinion heard everywhere to insist that it be included in all locations. Certainly there's absolutely no justification for it to be sneaked into the "proponents" section, as that has nothing to do with the proponents. And, hopefully will get it settled that it can't be rejected/opposed/etc. and merely minority status."

...sooo...I don't quite get why you're trying to attack me here again. Earlier arguments had claimed it was POV to have criticism in each section, and now they are claiming it's POV to have all the responses in one section that also happens to end up being only criticism. Again, what is the position on having anti-myth quotes dispersed throughout the article?

However, I would like to say thanks for taking my confusion on the pro-myth side's shifting demands as an attempt to censor you guys. Very good at assuming good faith.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me what this argument is about? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. As I said - each section should be balanced. If you don't understand the argument that the editor made above that this is not the same as finding every straw man quote that you can to show it's not "respectable" "accepted" or "academic" in any way, then you are editing the wrong article. If you think my AGF is wearing thin in having to deal with editors who obviously have never read any of the JM books and only appear to have a web search based apologetics "lets stamp this theory into the ground" understanding of the topic then I would have to agree with you. Sophia 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your AGF is "wearing thin"? Right, because you haven't been attacking me nearly this whole time. Bloody hell...my question is is it still in argument to have criticisms of the various positions throughout the article? Not too long ago it was claimed as POV to have any criticism in such places as the Recent Proponents section, as it "has nothing to do with the proponents". Then, pro-myth editors split up the section the criticism had been primarily corralled in, and split it throughout the article. I'm just trying to figure out if we're going to have the "no criticism throughout the article" complaint pop up again, because you guys seem to have greatly changed your mind. All I'm asking you to do is to answer if this is still a complaint, or if the sections are allowed to have arguments from both sides of the debate.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You bring way too much emotion to this page where some more reading would be helpful. Also a "Us vs Them" attitude is counter productive and indicative of the apologetics attitude that causes this article to suffer so much. I have never liked separate criticism sections and have always felt that each section needs to be balanced. The JM authors make points about lack of documents, parallels with older myths etc., and the mainstream view should be presented at the time to allow the reader to see the different sides of the debate. The lead section and "History of the theory" is where the whole area should be put into context within academia (ie this is where it should say it is a minority view). This is NOT the same as putting in every section that it is "rejected" "not respectable" and not a suitable topic for "serious" scholars. Please reread the previous comment that you pasted above. If you still don't understand the difference I suggest you contact me on my talk page so I can try to make it even clearer without clogging up this page. Sophia 06:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, that's all I was asking - above it had seemed like the consensus was with Akhilleus' "But most of the article should present individual authors' theories in a neutral manner--which means not trying to refute them in every section" (which is not specifically about the general "proponents are not respectable" thing), and it had seemed like your edits were the opposite of that. All I was trying to ask is what the situation on that was, and you've answered. Thank you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

it would seem to me that "most scholars are against it" would be in logic what is called 'appeal to authority". It seems to me that if you want to list scholar objections to the theory, you should list the scholar, and at least a summary specifically of his objection... and let's face it. "Nobody believes this", or "most scholars thing Jesus existed"... is not an actual argument, and such a position would therefore not be included. But I for one would like to see a list of scholars that have addressed the theory in a thoughful way. My understanding is that many simply avoid addressing it by saying "Nobody believes this", which is a sort of, as I said, logical falicy, and really does not say anything. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.132.74 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. The fact of the matter is most of the scholars on the pro-historical Jesus side are totally dismissive and don't even try to debate the issue but resort to Ad hominem attacks (the no reputatle/serous scholar nonsense), misrepresent relevant facts (as Burridge and Gould do with Pliny the Younger mentioning Jesus), appeal to authority that is decades out of date (Grant), and assume things that are still debated (the Gospels being 1st century documents which has never been proven).--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

I have removed some external links that were either blogs, or self published, or dead. WP encourages going light on external links, but if I mistakenly removed something that is acceptable, or missed something that is not, just correct my mistakes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus (background) paragraph reworked

I did some restructuring of this paragraph dealing with the origins of the subject at hand - with the purpose of neutrality in mind. I have read only descriptions and excerpts from the writings of the men involved, so I based my edit mostly on the article as it was, and the references I had at hand. My big concern was not only the POV, but also that this crucial paragraph be easy for the average reader to comprehend. Of note is that I used some different terms - I thought that what was written seemed to be a deliberate placing and emphasis on the "sun" - leading readers to see a correlation with "son" - without any concrete reference or excerpt from work of the men discussed that would give that emphasis any credibility. I also added a cite for references - and if the original wording was based on any existing text, it would be more credible to have some actual quotes with reference to the works from which they were drawn. No agenda whatsoever on my part - just an attempt to smooth the paragraph out and give it more objectivity with less use of potential "word pointing." Dmodlin71 (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I confess that I don't really understand what POV you are referring to (pro or anti JMH?). The Sun Myth theory is from Max Muller. The fact that sun sounds like son is only true in English (and to a much lesser extent in other Germanic languages). It's not true in other languages ('fils'; 'soleil' in French for example) or in ancient languages. I will add a citation from Muller shortly, since I have several of his works and books about him here. Paul B (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial clean up attempt

I tried reorganizing some parts of the article so they flow in more logical matter. The Specific arguments of the hypothesis got somewhat of a major overhaul with the New Testament epistles section now listed before the Early non-Christian references to Jesus. This hopefully allowed some streamlining of the article by allowing various points to be grouped together. Also the wording in some areas was changed to more acurately reflect the fact that some Pro historical Jesus scholors have problems with some references. Van Voorst is highly critical of Suetonius saying "Repeating a mistake in his sources is characteristic of Suetonius, who often treats then uncritically and uses them carelessly." (Jesus Outside the New Testament). Claims have been made at some Pro Historical Jesus sites that Benko doesn't hold much credence that "Chestus" was Christ and Steve Mason doubted it as well but these are third hand accounts and not useable in the article. France notes Tacitus could have been simply repeating what he heard and no "serious" scholor takes Josephus at face value anymore.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what "Pro Historical Jesus sites" say? I thought we were trying to get away from internet-based research.

Regarding Suetonius, Van Voorst says "Although Suetonius did view Christ as a historical person capable of fomenting unrest, his glaring mistakes should caution us against placing too much weight on his evidence for Jesus or his significance for early Christianity." (p. 39) Van Voorst also says "The thrust of the sentence is clear: that Claudius took measures against at least some Jews in Rome after continual disturbances. The center of difficulty is the identity of Chrestus. We have seen, first, that the better explanation of this difficulty is that Chrestus is a mistake for Christus. We have shown that this is probable, but to claim certainty is to go beyond the spare and somewhat equivocal evidence." So, it's correct to say that Van Voorst has "problems" with Suetonius as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but at the same time, let's not exaggerate the problems that he sees. He thinks that Suetonius is probable evidence that Christ was historical, but allows that his evidence is not strong. To skip to another piece of non-Christian evidence, Van Voorst says that Tacitus belived that Jesus was historical (p. 53). At this point, it is probably a good idea to note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on expert sources, regardless of whether individual Wikipedia editors believe that those sources are correct.

To translate this into something that has practical consequences for the article, I would say that the sentence "However even some supporters of a historical Jesus admit that each of these references has some problems." is too vague, and in the context of this article loads the dice in favor of the anti-historical position.

Frankly, in lieu of a section that tries to debunk the non-Christian references to Jesus, I would like to see a historical approach that sets out what Bauer, William Smith, Drews, Wells et al. said about these passages. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Who cares what "Pro Historical Jesus sites" say?" If they show that even part of the pro Historical Jesus side questions these passages with references supporting these (so you can go and directly look it up-which iswhy I put out the names of those used) than it shows that it is not just an issue among Jesus mythers something implied when 'critics' is used.

With all respect I think your concern with POV being biased in favor of the anti-historical position is starting to border on paranoia. Mentioning that each of the four most commonly used non-Christian sources has a 'problem' hardly "loads the dice"; it is being truthful about the quality of the sources as evidence. Outright stating that "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." and explaining "Pliny the Younger (61- c. 120) was active Roman governor in Asia Minor in around 111 CE when he wrote to the Emperor Trajan about what he discovered from people being accused of being Christians." (as Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould do in their Jesus Then and Nowon pg 37 is loading the dice. Everything is set up to make the reader think Pliny the Younger wrote something specifically about Jesus when he in fact wrote nothing about Jesus. Makes you wonder what other exaggerations Burridge and Gould engage in. When a source engages in stuff like that you really have to ask if it is a source Wikipedia should be using.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Euhemerization

I've edited the lead so it doesn't use the term Euhemerization, because it was being used incorrectly. Euhemerism is basically a rationalizing interpretation of mythology. For instance, Euhemerus argued that Zeus was originally a mortal man and a king of Crete, who was worshipped as a god by his grateful people. The lead, though, said that "A related idea is that the Jesus of the bible is a Euhemerisation of an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." Mead/Ellegard argue that Jesus is a mythological elaboration on an earlier historical figure--this is the opposite of euhemerization. One could say that Mead/Ellegard themselves euhemerize Jesus by finding his true origin in the Teacher of Righteousness or whoever, but since contributors to this article appear to be confused about the meaning of the term, I think we should use plain language: "A related idea is that the Jesus of the bible is based upon an earlier religious teacher..." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But others such as Freke and Gandy (and possibly Allegro but I would have to check that) argue that Jesus was a mythical figure who was given a cooked up history in the 2nd C - hence Paul's lack of interest in the details of Jesus' life.

I also notice the lead has lost the bit about the lack of non christian evidence being the reason for some thinking he is a myth. This is a very important point raised by many in the field so should be there. Sophia 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus is again putting his own views on what the the Jesus Myth. Several definitions I found on the web: "the theory of the Greek writer Euhemerus (4th cent. ) that the gods of mythology were deified human beings; theory that myths are based on traditional accounts of real people and events" [yourdictionary.com http://www.yourdictionary.com/euhemerism] "Euhemerus also spelled Euemeros, or Evemerus author of a utopian work that was popular in the ancient world; his name was given to the theory that gods are great men worshipped after their death (i.e., Euhemerism)." [Encyclopædia Britannica Online ] "Euhemerism. From Euhemerus ( c. 320 BCE), who argued that the gods developed out of elaborated legends concerned originally with historical people. Applied to Jesus, the question becomes, not cur Deus homo? , but cur homo Deus ? (online passage ends there--anyone have the full text?) (Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions) "The Greeks also contributed Euhemerism, the practice of reducing myths to prosaic explanations, a habit which would live on into the nineteenth century, particularly in biblical exegesis." (Cohen, Thomas V Canadian Journal of History, Dec 1995) Since the last definition come from a peer reviewed journal it has precedence and I am going with that. If Akhilleus has a scholarly Journal article that gives a substantially different definition than Cohan and explains how "gods are great men worshipped after their death" does not apply to the positions of Mead and Ellegard he is free to present it. Otherwise Euhemerism stays in and in the lead in paragraph.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Bruce, you seem to be confused on the meaning of euhemerism, despite the fact that you've harvested several definitions from the internet. Let's take Cohen--"the practice of reducing myths to prosaic explanations". So a "euhemerization" would be a "reduction of a myth to a prosaic explanation." Now, the text that you prefer in the lead is "A related idea is that the Jesus of the bible is a Euhemerisation of an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." In what sense is the Jesus of the bible a "reduction of a myth to a prosaic explanation"? It's Mead who's doing the euhemerization here, in that he's taking a mythical character (Jesus) and finding a prosaic explanation (he's based on an earlier historical figure).

This is a pretty good illustration that the term "euhemerization" and its relatives can be confusing; we should probably avoid using it, especially when it's possible to rephrase the material accurately and without the potential for confusing the reader.

There's another reason to avoid using the term. Some people apparently believe that a euhemerizing approach is unique to the JMT. But (as I'm sure I've said before) it's not--the entire quest for the historical Jesus can be called a euhemerist analysis. If you take the divine miracle-worker of the NT and find a (fully human) apocalyptic preacher, social revolutionary, etc. as the historical Jesus, you've found a "prosaic explanation" for a mythical character. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you are doing it backwards. The Jesus of the Bible is the hypothesized myth. The suggestion that the Biblical Jesus is (very loosely) based on the life of a real life teacher that lived somewhere in the first and second centuries is the reduction of the myth to a prosaic explanation; all within Cohn's definition. In note you are confusing Euhemerism with Euhemerization. Euhemerization deals with the process by which the historical person is turned into the myth. If you are up to reading Blavatsky (from 1880's who like Mead held Jesus lived 100BCE) you will find "The suspicion of a conscious and gradual euhemerization of the Christ principle ever since the beginning, grows into a conviction, once that one becomes acquainted with a certain confession contained in book ii. of the "Comment. to Matthew" by Hieronymus." (THEOSOPHY, Vol. 55, No. 6, April, 1967 pgs 170-180); note the italics here are hers not mine. I should mention that quick search of the internet also produced handout "Did Jesus Even Exist?" by Richard Carrier, M.A., M.Phil (Columbia University) which was for his Stanford Presentation on May 30, 2006. Under point 2 (The Evidence Warrants Disbelief) is point A "The Prior Probability of Ahistoricity and 'Euhemerization’ is not Small". Face it, Akhilleus, the more you keep claiming Euhemerization is not part of the JMT the more I find it is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Jesus of the Bible is the hypothesized myth." Yep. "The suggestion that the Biblical Jesus is (very loosely) based on the life of a real life teacher that lived somewhere in the first and second centuries is the reduction of the myth to a prosaic explanation." Yep. What you're saying is that Mead's theory is a euhemerization of the Jesus of the Bible.

But the text that you're putting into the article is "A related idea is that the Jesus of the Bible is a Euhemerisation of an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." This sentence says that the Jesus of the Bible is a "prosaic explanation" of the Teacher of Wisdom. Is that really what you want the article to say? Because that seems like the exact opposite of what you say Mead's idea is.

I get the feeling you're not reading what I'm writing very carefully, because you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I've said, euhemerization is not unique to the JMT, not by a long shot--most lives of Jesus are euhemerizing accounts in that they try to locate a historical person underneath the "myth" of the New Testament. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Carrier piece you mention doesn't show anything about the use of "euhemerization"; there's not even enough detail there to establish how he uses the word. It would be great if you stopped using whatever random document pops up in Google searches, because quite often the stuff you're bringing in here doesn't meet WP:RS. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to reversing what the sentence is saying because you are misreading an adjective clause as a verb. It is akin to saying that the sentence of 'John thought the euthanazion of the dog was cruel.' somehow says that John was what was euthanizied! Just as 'of the dog' tells you what was euthanizied so does 'of an earlier religious teacher' tell you who was Euhemerised because they are adjective clauses modifying the word they come right after. Your example of Mead again shows you have totally confused Euhemerism (the theory) with Euhemerization (the process the theory say operates) because I am saying Mead's theory is a Euhemerism (NOT euhemerization; please note the difference) regarding the Jesus of the Bible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As you're using it, the notion of an "adjective clause" doesn't make sense. Check out the definition of clause. Perhaps you're trying to say that I'm mistaking a passive voice for an active voice?

As you say, both "euthanization" and "euhemerization" refer to processes. But that doesn't support your argument. You can say that "the dog was euthanized", but you can't say that "the dog is a euthanization"--what would that mean?. You can say "Jesus was euhemerized", but you can't say that "Jesus is a euhemerization", because that's equivalent to "Jesus is the process of providing a prosaic explanation for a mythical figure."

In any event, "euhemerization" refers to the analysis carried out by the theorist--in this case, Mead. This should be obvious from the normal method of forming English words, but if you want a citation, look at Diane P. Thompson, The Trojan War: Literature and Legends from the Bronze Age to the Present, p. 9: "...both Dictys and Dares wrote long after the Trojan War, perhaps in the first century CE, or perhaps later. Each dealt with the gods in two ways popular at that time: where possible, eliminate the gods entirely; where the gods had to play a role, present them as historical human beings falsely reported to be gods. This explanation of the ancient gods as human was called euhemerization." (This is even on Google Books, so you can check it without bothering to go to the library.)

It makes perfect sense to say that Mead's theory is a euhemerization of the Jesus of the Bible; it's not good style to say that Mead's theory is "a euhemerism". It's fine to say that his theory is euhemeristic, or euhemerizing. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And here's the OED entry for euhemerism, minus the citations:

The method of mythological interpretation which regards myths as traditional accounts of real incidents in human history.

Euhemerus, a Sicilian (c 316 B.C.) was the author of a book called Hiera anagraphe, in which he maintained that the deities of Hellenic mythology were deified men and women, and pretended to cite authentic records of their lives.

So Euhemerist [+ -IST], one who follows the method of Euhemerus; also attrib. (quasi-adj.). Euhemeristic a. [f. prec. + -IC], (a) of persons: Inclined to euhemerism; (b) of things: Of the nature of or resembling euhemerism. Euhemerize v., (a) trans. To subject to euhemeristic interpretation; also, to euhemerize into or out of. (b) intr. To follow the method of Euhemerus. Euhemerized, ppl. a. Euhemerizing vbl. n. (in quot. attrib.).

"Euhemerization" isn't in there, but it's obviously formed from the verb euhemerize, and you'll note that both definitions refer to the process of subjecting something to euhemeristic interpretation. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that looking for Euhemerisation and Euhemerization through Google books also produces authors who use it the same way I do. "Thor, the euhemerization of electricity, handles his peculiar element only when protected by gloves of iron" ("Isis Unveiled: A master-key to the mysteries of ancient and modern science" Theosophy (1919) Page 161 by Helena Blavatsky) "Although the term euhemerization has often been used in Chinese studies to define the process of rationalizing gods into humans, in fact it means the exact opposite. The original term means the rationalization of human hero kings into gods." (Birrell, Anne 1993 Chinese Mythology: An Introduction) So the term is used both ways. Looks like euhemerization has become akin to the term "culture" in my field which must be read in context to see how the author is using it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the problem with using Google Books etc. is that you start thinking that writers like Blavatsky are authoritative sources on the meaning of "euhemerization". Blavatsky is not an authoritative source on anything, except the beliefs of Theosophists.

Fortunately, I don't rely on Google Books; I have actually read physical books about Greek mythology, and thus know who Euhemerus was and what Euhemerist theories are. The OED (which is not on Google Books!) is based on a similar understanding.

What's more, I know that the sense in which "euhemerization" is used in Sinology differs quite drastically from the way it's used in classical studies; see e.g. H.W.F. Saggs, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 25 (1962) p. 196: "D. Bodde's essay on 'Myths of ancient China'...concentrates upon religion in classical China: one learns incidentally that Sinologists perversely employ the term 'euhemerization' in the opposite sense to everyone else" and William Boltz, "Kung Kung and the Flood: Reverse Euhemerism in the Yao Tien," T'oung Pao 67 (1981) p. 141: "The process whereby these early myths were lost is generally referred to as euhemerization, or euhemerism ; though as I shall show here euhemerism more sinico is technically the precise opposite of euhemerism in its proper Greek usage."

Within classics euhemerization (and related terms) has a very well understood and stable meaning; quite unlike anthropology, where many technical terms are constantly under question, and could mean something quite different depending on who you're reading. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Josh McDowell used the OED in the very early versions of his Evidence That Demands a Verdict and the film that went with it (saw it in the last 1980's at University of Utah) because it had a definition of science that excluded all the social (or soft) sciences doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence about its definitions. The fact that other other use it the same way I did shows the terrm can be used both ways.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

breakdown

ok, let me try to break down the disagreement here. in strictly logical terms, we have the following possibilities

1. Jesus was a historical man, who was god
2. Jesus was a historical man, who was later mythologized into being a god
3. some prior historical person existed (call him mr. X), and Jesus is a mythical, god-like figure based more or less loosely on mr. X
4. Jesus is a mythical compilation of several historical persons
5. Jesus is a pure mythological fabrication, with no historical basis

the question is, which of these constitutes an euhemerization? clearly the first and last are not, and by definition the second one is. but what about the other two? ideas and cites? if we can't figure out how this term should be correctly applied, then it would probably be a good idea to drop it entirely. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the third option probably counts as a Euhemerization as well, as that is basically what Euhemerus said of Zeus, and four is more or less a variation on that. However, I really do not believe that the word should be used. We have to remember that wikipedia is aimed at a general reader. I like to think I know a fair amount about mythology and religion, and the word is one with which I am at best marginally familiar. I think it would make most sense, if that concept is to be included in the lead, which makes sense to me, to not use that word but rather use a phrase which more clearly states the same thing. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

True but we have to be truthful to the reader. Currently the whole Jesus Myth article is slanted toward that either Jesus existed or he didn't with the middle ground that Mead, Ellegard, and Blavatsky actually covered which was the Biblical Jesus didn't exist but there was a man who lived either in the 1st or 2nd century BCE who was the basis for the Biblical Jesus left swaying in the wind.

I would also say the lead in is deceptive as all get out. It says "The hypothesis was first proposed by historian and theologian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century" and yet in the body of the text it states "Two early proponents of the idea that Jesus was a mythical character were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis, radical French Enlightenment thinkers who published books in the 1790s that argued Christ was based upon a combination of Persian and Babylonian mythology." Well if Volney and Dupuis were putting this out in 1790 then Bauer in the 19th century could not have been the first could he?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

something like this? "A related idea is that the stories of Jesus in the Bible are a reference to or compilation of the lives of earlier religious teacher(s), with possible candidates going back as far as c150 BCE." could even throw in a "(see Euhemerization)" note, if that would satisfy people... --Ludwigs2 22:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this suggestion is that Mead and Ellegard (apparently) contend that the Jesus of the NT is an elaboration upon whatever earlier historical figure they think is the basis--that is, mythological content has been added. So it's not accurate to say that the stories are a reference or a compilation. Obviously, I think that my text--"A related hypothesis is that the Jesus of the bible is based upon an earlier religious teacher with possible candidates going back as far as the 2nd century BCE."--is a good alternative. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Or we could modify something that Bruce wrote up above, along the lines of: "A related hypothesis is that the Biblical Jesus is based on the life of a religious teacher that lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

the only issue there is that actually touches on the 'mythical composite character based on earlier historical persons' that is on the lead. Mead spend a lot of time on showing evidence for a Jesus like person c100 BC but little on how that Jesus became the Jesus of the Bible so I would prefer to keep it sort of separate but it doesn't seem to flow well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, how about "A related hypothesis claims that the stories of Jesus found in the New Testament are transfers from an earlier religious teacher who lived sometime during the 1st or 2nd century BCE." that 'stories' thing is a useful tool for separating the actual person from his historical footprint. --Ludwigs2 00:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is good progress (you're right about the "stories" thing), but this text doesn't account for the elaboration that (allegedly) happens in the formation of the Gospel stories. BTW, we need to ask whether Mead and Ellegard are notable and whether they should be included in this article; no evidence has been provided for these points other than BruceGrubb's assertion that these authors are important. In the few secondary sources I've found on this subject (websites dont' count), Van Voorst and Weaver don't mention Mead (Ellegard is too recent for them to cover); and I suppose we should include Schweitzer, who devotes a lot of coverage to Bauer, Drews, and other authors who fall within the ambit of this article, but doesn't mention Mead. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Mead and Ellegard ARE important (as opposed to notable-Mendel certainly wasn't notable until more than 40 years after he wrote his "Experiments on Plant Hybridization" paper and had been dead for 20 years) because they show that the Jesus Myth question is NOT the excluded middle of either Jesus existed or He did not that is is often presented. In fact, I have previously cited at least one pro Historical Jesus supporter who puts Mead in the Jesus Myth camp.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus - I think your first point is easy enough to clear up - just tweak the phrase a bit like this: "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." with respect to the notabilty issue, I see this phrase as a necessary disambiguation comment rather than a point of factual interest in the article. some people are going to be confused (some people like us - lol) as to how far the JMH actually extends, philosophically speaking, and so statements that place it in context should be used just for that purpose. that's how I see it, anyway... --Ludwigs2 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

docetism

Why is this mentioned at all? The lead states that the JMT is a modern theory (19th century and later); there's not much chance of confusing it with an ancient heresy. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the article on docetism does mention the Qur'an among "Texts including docetism" so the concept is hardly "ancient heresy".--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Christianity, it's an ancient heresy. The Qur'an isn't exactly a modern text, either. I see no reason to mention Docetism in the lead. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible isn't exactly a modern text either. The point is that the idea of Docetism does show up in some modern ideas and not those of just scholars.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this was just intended as disambiguation. I mean, when you are asking whether Jesus was a historical being, the possibility that he was a non-corporeal projection kind of throws peanut butter on the popcorn. can a non-corporeal projection really be considered 'historical'? --Ludwigs2 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's intended as disambiguation, but I don't see why it's necessary. I ask again: the article makes it plain that we're dealing with a theory that took definitive shape in the 19th century. Why would anyone confuse that with a heresy whose heyday was the 2nd century? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it all depends on what you call 'historical'. The reports of Spring Heeled Jack are certainly historical but it is uncertain if that term can be applied to Spring Heeled Jack himself. Even if Jesus had been a non-corporeal projection you still run into many of the same problems the Pro-Jesus Myth side has with a living breathing Jesus c4 BC-c29 CE: if the Gospels are even remotely accurate why didn't anyone during this period record his ministry which according to Bishop Irenaeus c180 CE supposedly lasted between 10 to 20 years. Then you have all the people on what is known as the Remsberg List which lists over 40 possible people who could have noted Jesus but didn't. The issue of why the over 20 year gap between Jesus dying and the first formal Gospel and why Paul doesn't seem to cite any really definable events from Jesus life on earth and on and on it goes. Typing this about the only relevance that I see Docetism having is the idea the crusifiction was an illusion and I think I agree with Akhilleus; it just doesn't seem to fit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

well, let me suggest to solutions, if there's anyone who really thinks the line should remain. (1) move it to a footnote as a minor disclaimer. (2) remove it, but add one of those disambiguation lines at the top of the article - you know... for related topics, see Docetism, Euhemerization, ... --Ludwigs2 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is almost no doubt that Spring Heeled Jack was a real person, but that the reports of his actions produced widespread panic, many copycats and hysterical exaggerations. That's essentially the same as the mainstream view of Jesus. Why on earth you think that a minor preacher should be mentioned by lots of authors is a mystery. The evidence we have for most Jewish messainc claimants of the period is miniscule. See the tiny amount of evidence we have about Theudas and Judas of Galilee. This is simply normal given that only a tiny proportion of texts survive from the era. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

True, a tiny proportion of texts survive from the era. But then you hit the reasons WHY so few texts survive; neglect, cultural disintegration, and most importantly the Christians themselves. The destruction of what remained of the Library of Alexandria in 391 and 415 by Christian zealots shows that there were those who feared what others wrote and would go to any lengths to see those views destroyed. As for a "mainstream" view on Jesus, other that he existed I really don't see that there is one; every scholar seems to have their own view on what is reliable and what is not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you have any reliable sources which prove that the Library of Alexandria was destroyed in 391 and 415 by 'Christian zealots'? You seem to claim that one of the reasons why so few 1st century texts survive is that Christians destroyed them. Do you have any reliable evidence for this claim? --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not (I suppose a quick visit to Wikipedia's article on the Library of Alexander was disappointing). That's very illuminating. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Acharya S up for deletion

While not universally respected, I do think she is notable. Feel free to comment here [10]. I must admit, I am a bit bewildered by the process. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Earl Doherty is now up for deletion also. As I've said, I am bewildered, as people are suggesting that popular writers need to have numerous academic journals reference their works before they can be considered notable. Doesn't matter how many books you sell, how many radio appearances you've appeared on (they're not WP:RS)... Published book reviews by other notables in your own field apparently don't count either. What the heck? ^^James^^ (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, James, "published book reviews" count. Self-published book reviews generally don't, though, and as far as I can see reviews of Acharya S and Doherty appear on self-published websites; this seems to be the case for Doherty as well, except for one review in the American Atheist. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"As far as you can see"? Funny at 19:31 that same day you stated "The review also appeared in the print edition: vol. 39, no. 1 (Winter 2000-2001), pp. 43-45" Ie you yourself found a printed review backing up the self-published website some 15 minutes before posting to here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just one review, Bruce, and it's of Doherty, not of Acharya S. If it will make you happy, I will modify my statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Since then several other reviews have been produced for Doherty and I supplied four books before you posed this anyhow. Furthermore ^^James^^ produced two book reviews (one by Doherty and another by Price) on 10:36, 28 June 2008. The original version of the Price review took a grand total of 10 seconds to find through google. Another review by Mike Licona was found by expanding the search for the Price article. One can not see far if one stays in the valley;its best to get up on a mountain.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last post was confusing because you're talking about both Doherty and Acharya S, without indicating that you're switching between the two. Yeah, you found some material about Doherty in a couple of books, but those books only mention him in passing (not "significant coverage"), and one book is self-published, and another is a work of fiction.

The other stuff you mention--a review by Doherty, a review by Price, and a response by Mike Licona--is about Acharya S. You seem to have forgotten is the difference between self-published material and third-party publications, which is what I was talking about in my response to James above. Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, and are not generally useful for establishing notability. Mike Licona's website, www.risen-jesus.com, is self-published. Ditto for the Doherty review. Price's review of The Christ Conspiracy, as far as I can tell, was published on his website, not in another venue, and if that's the case it's also self-published. Under some conditions, self-published material by experts in the subject can be used as sources, but the current version of the page says that the review has been withdrawn from the site pending revision, so I don't think it's a great source for establishing notability. If your websearching skills have lead you to reviews of Acharya S' work that appeared in third-party publications (in other words, not on self-published websites) then by all means mention them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources regards content within an article while notability has slightly different criteria. General notability guidelines are good for topics but have problems when applied to living persons. In fact the bar on living persons is so high (much of it for practical reasons) that unless they are are par to the President of the US or PM of the UK it is a wonder anything can be written about them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The Notability guideline for people says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In other words, both guidelines specify that the subject must receive coverage in reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet the Chick Tracks article whose 90 some references are all self-published is not up for deletion but The Jesus Puzzle is. Why are these policies being applied inconstantly?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably because most of the editors responsible for the Chick tracts (not 'Tracks'), article are atheists, whereas many who want to see 'Acharya S' go are Christians. The fact is, many atheists find them entertaining, which is why the article exists. And to be fair, it has already been noted more than once in the Chick tracts article that the content isn't up to WP standard:

• 'If someone who was very strict about WP policies were to notice this article, he or she might say that all of the examples should be removed since they don't come from secondary sources. I think this is a worthwhile article myself, even if not WP standard. Steve Dufour 03:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)'
• 'Are there no independent sources for this content? Guy (Help!) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)'
• 'Actually they look like original research, even if they aren't, we should be using reliable sourcing. Benjiboi 05:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)'

Besides, this is Wikipedia, consistently inconsistent! --Taiwan boi (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)