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.

Josephus

"Proponents of the view of Jesus as myth typically dispute the authenticity of the passages in Josephus which mention Jesus". This makes it sound although the passage in Josephus is only disputed by proponants of the Jesus myth when in fact it is more widely disputed as can bee seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus.

Yes, you are right. This is an example of many statements in the article which are imprecise. Technically is the sentence true but it might give a wrong impression to the reader. You have, in fact, touched on the big problem in this area. It is exemplified by the previous sentence "Three early writers are typically cited in support of the actual existence of Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius." If one looks at Suetonius then it is obvious that he can not be used to support the actual existence of Jesus at all. But it is true that he is typically cited as if he could. What should we, wiki-editors do? We can only cite a reliable source that says that Suetonius can not be used for this. This will give an impression that it is a matter of using different methodologies or even a matter of taste among scholars whether Suetonius can or cannot be used for this. (If some scholarly source said that 2+2=5, you can not do an original research and say that 2+2=4, you have to find a source saying this, and leave an impression that this question can not be resolved by contemporary scholarly methodology ... It is an exaggeration, I know, but that is my impression of many points in this area.) In the case of Josephus, the fact of reality is that he can not be used as a reliable evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth but as a wiki-editor you have to report that "several scholars have proposed that the core witness to a Jesus as a leader of a sect is reliable" ...

Sorry for another more general comment. Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty have recently done a real work in this area. They elaborated meticulous methodological works, arriving at the Jesus-Myth idea from different angles. They also took all the previous research in the area into account, they do not repeat some old arguments which were questioned and shown unreliable many decades ago. After mentioning Doherty and Price, the introductory paragraph of the article continues "However, modern scholarly discussion and support is very limited." This is technically true but it might give an impression that Doherty and Price probably make blatant methodological mistakes which could be easily demonstrated if some "real scholar" wanted to spend his/her precious time to demonstrate this. Unfortunately, they do not do this. So if a poor wiki-editor wants to show that the theory is "fringe" or so, (s)he has to resort to references and "arguments" like "I do not know any respectable critical scholar ...", or the quotes from Grant 1977 (who, in fact, just quotes other older works), etc. I think the real problem why modern scholarly discussion of this topic is currently very limited is more sociological than related to the reality of the research problem as such. Of course, I would have to find a reliable source if I wanted that this aspect is also reflected in the article. But we would hardly find a "neutral observer" whose observation could be consensually placed in the article. Now I could only offer a quote from R.M. Price himself though it addresses something slightly different: In Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, p.22. "... anything is possible, but we must ask what is probable. This is important because of the very widespread tendency of convential Bible students, even of otherwise sophisticated scholars, to weigh arguments for critical positions and then toss them aside as `unproven'. The operative factor here would appear to be a deep-rooted inertia. The controlling presupposition seems to be, `If the traditional view cannot be absolutely debunked beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it still might possibly be true, then we are within our rights to continue to believe it'.Jelamkorj (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit was changed by KrytenKoro stating that;

"I'd rather this be linked to the actual reports, and present their own opinions - not have him pick 87 by his own methods, and interpret them himself"

I agree in principle but the current sentence leads to a false conclusion i.e. that Josephus is accepted by scholars who oppose the Jesus myth hypothesis.

Could anyone provide some references so we can get this sorted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.10.144 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like what you added could be included, but only if buttressed with some explanation of how he chose these, and how he determined that's what they said. I mean, the 1937-1980 just seems like a weird choice, and why only 87 to look over? Is that how many were written about Josephus in total, or just the ones he could acquire, or what? How large is the "overwhelming majority"? Is it 99%, or as little as 52%?

From the Grant discussion, consensus seems to be that we can't just let one guy summarize the entire question without some discussion of how he did so.

If you could get some of the reports he summarized, just as examples, and then see if he has any more depth to his explanation, that would be great.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

However, as it was, the section does say that this criticism is usually accepted by Biblical scholars - it's just that the proponents use this as one of their arguments.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Grant it basically comes down to him quoting from an even earlier author summarizing things in the 1950's. We saw THAT nonsense in the infamous Bermuda Triangle mess and know it to be poor research of the highest order. Furthermore Gould can demonstrated to be misleading his readers: "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." Jesus Then and Now pg 37 The problem is that statement is NOT TRUE! Of these three only Tacitus clearly mentions Jesus. Suetonus may or may not depending on if you read his Chrestus as a misspelling (Gould plays up the misspelled version of Christus) and Pliny does not mention Jesus at all! This demonstrates that we cannot trust Grant's summations making him useless as a reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And this has to do with sourcing the Josephus criticism how?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Grant's summation of other facts can be demonstrated to be at best grossly inaccurate and borderline deceptive that means that anything else he says (including Josephus) is suspect. Again just because a person is a well respected professional doesn't mean that he has his facts right. So far all I have seen regarding quotes Grant are vague statements that wouldn't have last two seconds in a master thesis defense. Also looking up the exact phrase "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" produced books that attributed the quote to some guy named Otto Betz in his What do We Know about Jesus? (1968) so there are things attributed to Grant that may in fact NOT be from Grant himself. Basically it looks more and more you have a Lost Patrol situation where Grant is parroting Otto Betz who is parroting an even earlier statement dating back to at least 1957 from earlier comments. In short, we cannot trust Grant on ANYTHING he says.--216.31.13.104 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this seriously your argument? You found one quote in the entire sum of literature on Jesus that happened to be used by two different authors over a span of forty years, so Grant does this all the time?

I think, instead of using hilariously laughable rationale like that, you should actually "demonstrate them to be grossly inaccurate", instead of just throwing generalities around. I agree that we should never accept any historian's word as the word of God, but you're getting kind of silly with your reaction.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you don't get it. I ALREADY gave such an example of Grant's "grossly inaccurate SUMMATIONS": "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." AGAIN only Tacitus does what Grant claims. Pliny simply refers to the Christian movement which nobody in the Jesus Myth circle claims didn't exist. The Suetonus claim is even worse as Grant uses the deceptive Christus spelling rather than the actual Chrestus one and doesn't even bother to tell the reader this. Your effort to tap dance around facts is astounding.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

...."my effort to tap dance around facts"? Excuse me, have I once said anything about Pliny, Tacitus, or Suetonius? No? I believe I was talking about it being ridiculous to throw out everything a historian says because you disagree with one of his claims. You may be right, he may be right - I honestly don't give a damn right now.

Honestly, I don't know why you keep trying to treat this page like a forum. You want to discuss this so bad, go to infidels.org or something. This is not the place.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will keep posting FACTS. The fact is Grant's statement is not his own and we have no idea where he really got it. That make is relevant regardless of your personal delusions on the matter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Hell? Why do you insist on employing ad hominem attacks and continuously changing the subject? We are talking about one thing here - sourcing the Josephus criticism. As far as I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with Grant. I'm not "deluding myself" or "tap-dancing around the topic" - I'm merely refusing to let you run away with the discussion for your own personal grievances. If you want to discuss Grant , in his context to the article, go ahead and do so - in a separate section. If you want to discuss him in general, as you've been doing, go to a forum.

However, I will take you up on one point, here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant's Quote

"The fact is Grant's statement is not his own and we have no idea where he really got it."

If we don't know the source, how can we accuse him of plagiarism? Besides, as the quote is written, it is clear he is using somebody else's words - they even use the single quotation marks. It is evident from how it it written that he is not trying to claim the words as his own.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It not Grants words if it is quoted is it? And if it is not referenced then we don't know if it came from Otto Betz (1986), Roderic Dunkerley (1957), or some other person that Berz and Dunkerley themselves may have quote from. That is the problem. Also when people like Charlesworth use weasel words like "No reputable scholar today" (he is basically saying Richard Price not a reputable scholar. Right, pull the other one; it plays Jingle Bells) they are reaffirming Doherty's position of curt dismissal. Furthermore in the book this quote comes from Jesus and Archaeology Charlesworth was the editor and it is a collection of other works by other scholars and appears in the introduction. Clearly this comment is self published and has no place as a reference. While we are on the issue of book title mind telling us which book the Van Voorst pg 7 reference is from?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the full text of the section - I haven't been able to find a copy myself, but from the way the quote's are used, it seems that he is summing up, and went over them earlier.

However, the point is that he is in no way claiming the words to be his, and you're call to throw out everything he says doesn't follow from this.

"Also when people like Charlesworth use weasel words like "No reputable scholar today" (he is basically saying Richard Price not a reputable scholar."

Yes, they are. I was under the impression that Price was only well-known because of the Jesus myth anyway.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your impression of why Price is well-known has no relevance on the matter on of him being a "reputable scholar". Public recognition for achievements is a fickle thing; how many people know of Karl Landsteiner or Charles Drew regarding blood groups? How about Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, Oskar Heil, or Matare and Welker compared to Shockley and Pearson? Even more startling is when tested with the materials available when it was made Lilienfeld's 1925 transistor patent worked. Yet popular history records the transistor was "invented" in 1946; popular history and REAL history sadly are NOT the same thing. For many years Edison was credited with inventing the first electric lightbulb; only recently has then statement been changed to the more historical accurate invented the first commercial feasible incandescent lightbulb. But no such checks were in place when Constantine I came to power and wanted a bible produced. What governed what writings were thought to be valid and which were not was political. Christianity in the 4th century was nearly as varied then as it is now. Yet the mysterious "Gospel by Jesus Chris" Joseph Wheless talks about was not considered as valid. Think about that; a Gospel proporting to be written by Jesus himself was considered so heretical that all we have today is its name. What was in there that so frighted the people putting the Bible together? We will likely never know as the Jesus we know is a political creation of the 4th century. It is that simple.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this probably isn't going to register, but - it's probably not allowed to be debating with you at all about this, and most of these comments should be expunged, but if I am allowed to, I'm still not going to discuss every possible tangent you can come up with. You want to discuss something? Then pick one thing. If you simply want to rant, this is not at all the place.

Seriously, lightbulbs?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, KrytenKoro, you demonstrate you simply don't get it and more over don't even try to get it. The above examples show that public recognition for achievements doesn't not mean squat regarding if that someone is a good scholar or even the person who history "records" as doing the great work in question. Lavoisier's caloric theory was rammed down science's throat simply on the merits of Lavoisier's impressive credentials even though experiments showed Bernoulli's earlier kinetic theory made more sense. Since the words are not not Grant's and he provides no support to back up the quote you basically have Lavoisier's caloric theory all over again. I noticed that you have not even touched on the issue of does Grant state WHO he is quoting from in the book?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"In fact, they are not. One referenced writer, Rodney Dunkerley, in his Beyond the Gospels (1957, p.12), devotes a single paragraph to the “fantastic notion” that Jesus did not actually live; its exponents, he says, “have again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars,” but since he declares it “impossible to summarize those scholars’ case here,” he is not the source of Grant’s conviction. Nor can that be Oskar Betz, from whose What Do We Know About Jesus? (1968, p.9) Grant takes his second quote. Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

I do not have access to a copy of Grant's book, however, and all mentions on the internet seem to be derived from how doherty chose to write the excerpt. Can you provide the entire excerpt? Or are you relying on how wikipedia phrased it?

And yes, I understood why you tried to bring Lovoisier and lightbulbs into this. I just don't care, since it's not on topic, and is pretty much just another tangent you're trying to drag this into. Also, the personal attacks? Can get you a warning, and if they don't stop, eventually a block from admins. They don't tolerate that crap. If you can't discuss things with a civil attitude, you ought not to be here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 08:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This conversation should stop. Michael Grant is a reputable, even famous scholar. No amount of grousing in an online forum is going to change that. Nor, despite all of BruceGrubb's posts, is anything wrong with the quote we're using: Grant uses direct quotes and attributes them to the authors who wrote them. The fact that BruceGrubb happens to disagree with what Grant says is no reason to stop using the quote.

What's more, it looks like BruceGrubb hasn't even read the section of Grant in question. If he had, presumably he would realize that Grant's argument doesn't rely on Dunkerley/Betz/whoever; he spends a few paragraphs discussing flaws in the Jesus myth theory and then concludes with the quote starting "To sum up..." In other words, Grant regards the Jesus myth as "annihilated" because he's looked at it and found it wanting. The quotes from Dunkerley and Betz are rhetorical coloring; if they were absent, the substance of Grant's argument would be no different--it would just be less quotable.

Once again, this conversation should stop. BruceGrubb keeps on repeating the same arguments (for months now) without gaining any traction, and apparently without any regard for Wikipedia's policies on sourcing or personal attacks. It should be clear that there is no consensus to remove Grant's quote, so there's no reason to keep on having the same conversation. I hope that BruceGrubb will simply drop this topic; but if not, there's no reason to respond to what he's saying--in fact, future posts on this topic should probably be removed from the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not personal to point out the flaw in a reference. Also KrytenKoro has admitted "I haven't been able to find a copy myself" and "I do not have access to a copy of Grant's book" and so can't state with certainty where Grant's quote really came from. A search through Google books using the phrase "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus" produces three references that the passage being from Otto Betz (McDowell - 1979, Arthur Paterson Lee - 2002, and Dr. C. T. Benedict - 2007) with Michael Martin - 1991 using Grant but then making some reference to Wells as Martin is talking about something else at this point. Sadly Google books does not have any of the text Grant's book available for preview and a search for Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" only produced references to the work not the work itself. But regardless of that KrytenKoro's quote does PROVE part of my point. The reference claims the 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' quote comes from Roderic Dunkerley when everything seems to indicate that it come from Otto Betz. Continuing to support a reference proven to be a question poses some serious problems regarding the support of FACTS in this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you haven't read Grant's book, except for the quotes you've read on the internet? Why are we even having this discussion, if you have no idea what it says? Aren't you guilty of exactly the thing you're accusing Grant of doing--quoting without bothering to do the necessary homework? --Akhilleus (talk)

Have YOU read Grant's book, Akhilleus? If not then how can you defend the defend the reference if you don't know what is says about where Grant got the quotes is true? In short I will put it to you: cite the page reference in Dunkerley's "Beyond the Gospels" that Grant gets the SECOND quote ("no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus") from. While you are at it tell us which of the several books Van Voorst wrote the p. 7 reference is to.--216.31.13.104 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant writes a few paragraphs on the subject and it's somehow considered a quotable rebuttle? Why not quote someone who has devoted more than a single page to the topic? It's easy to dismiss something out of hand; it's another to actually study and address the arguments that have been put forth. ^^James^^ (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant's treatment is quite representative of how this theory is treated in academia--actually, no, because most scholars think the theory is so crazy that it's not even worth refuting. When biblical scholars and classical historians mention it, they don't spend much space dealing with it, because they regard it as self-evidently wrong.

It's hard for me to understand why there has to be so much argument over this point--the JM hypothesis is waay outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship, classical history, and anything you'd find inside a college or university classroom. If you like it, and find it convincing, that's fine, but if we're going to craft anything close to an NPOV article, it's also necessary to say that it's not a mainstream theory by any means. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that the scholars think the theory is so crazy that it's not even worth refuting or that that the point is moot and dealing with how Christianity spread after Paul is more important and don't want to get involved in the firestorm even touching on such an idea would generate? Furthermore the Jesus myth theory is not just that Jesus never existed idea but the he is a composite character with a flesh and blood origin that predates the Biblical Jesus by at least half a century; so far NONE of the long references seem to even touch on this version.

If as Grant says there is "much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary" why do we see the same sources of Josephus (it been altered but let's use it anyhow), Tacitus (don't where he got this information but let's use it anyway), Suetonius (he misspelled), Pliny the Younger (If there are Christians then their must have been a Jesus) and when they are have a really bad day Thallus (a 4th century person supposedly quoting a 3rd century person supposedly quoting Thallus) and the Babylonian Talmud (details and time frames are all wrong for any suggested candidate never mind the age of the document) put forth? Also the full quote has problems. If Grant did research why right after the 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' quote does he say "or at any rate very few"? Doesn't he know?! As for consensus Sophia, E4mmacro, Phyesalis, James and my self has all express concerns about using Grant. Even KrytenKoro said "its just that Grant didn't support it himself very well, in that quote" and later "If better quotes are found, by all means, replace the Grant quote" though he thought the quote somehow helps the pro myth side (which I don't see). Furthermore digging through the archives for the above I found that on 4 February 2008 Akhilleus was informed that that Otto Betz was one of the quoted people and he replied "BTW, thanks for establishing that Grant is quoting somebody else." Not changing a reference you know to be slightly inaccurate is somewhat excusable given the way things go on the talk page but to defend such a reference when you yourself responded to a correction is borderline reckless. While were we are on the issue of sloppy references anyone found out which book the Van Voorst, p. 7. reference is to?--216.31.13.104 (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism

Some elements of Jesus' life are similar to that of Buddha's. Such as going out into the wilderness and being tempted by Mara/Satan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Christianity 70.89.165.91 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean that one element, that isn't actually a defining characteristic? There's only so many different things a savior figure can do, and you're bound to find a few common details here and there. The stories would have to be virtually identical for their to be reasonable concern of one being based on the other.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not made up to any degree"

Granted, I worded that poorly. What I was trying to say was that claiming there was a real historical person, at the turn of the millenium, who the figure in the New Testament was based on, doesn't allow for him to be a made up combination of several different stories. Sorry if it sounded like I was claiming that Biblical historians support Bible literalism.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to claim that there was a historical Jesus and say that the figure in the NT is a composite of several myths, stories, figures, what have you. That would make the Gospel narratives a "mythically" inspired elaboration on the career of the actual Jesus, and as such there's no reason why the elaboration couldn't be inspired by other historical figures. I'm sure there's somebody who's claimed something like this. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then to what extent is it a historical Jesus?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

KrytenKoro has just discovered the key issue with the composite person version of the Jesus Myth and why claiming that version has been disproved using statements regarding non-historical is OR. Just as if you look hard enough you can find "historical" basis for King Arthur and Robin Hood you can likely find some historical basis for Jesus but in essence you are no longer talking about the people you started with. With Jesus we are not sure how much (if any) of the events outside of what Paul relates supposedly happened or what outside what Paul states Jesus may have said. This means there could have been a Jesus of Nazareth who was made to say things by other historical figures which would make the Biblical Jesus a composite character.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has major problems

First off, and most importantly, the article was very, very, off the scale a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, in that it tried to stack opinions into the lead itself.

Second, the cites/references in the lead that supposedly supported the idea that scholars and historians as a whoile reject the theory were not written as references but as lists of quotes of single authors stating their own personal opinions.

Third, upon removing these bogus citations, other citations throughout the article lost there references, because whomever originally made the tags put them together incorrectly. A reference to a specific quote in one location cannot be a reference used for a person or book in general in later references. If someone wants to go back in and restore those in the proper places, great, but be aware that citations are only for others stating opinions and not for trying to prove what "historians" say (especially as most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources).

Fourth, it's very clear that we have people looking for rationalizations to put their own opinions into the article and to remove opinions they do not like, which violates the core foundation of how WIkipedia is supposed to work. Someone removed a whole sentence because he claimed to object to the use of the word "notes" in it and recommended "argues" or some other variant... fine, "notes" is a POV-loaded word. The problem is that the person did not just change it to "argues" but removed the entire section... and also left a number of other sections in the article in which authors he/she agreed with were said to "note" certain things that were only those authors opinions and should also have been "argues" or "claims" in order to be fair and consistent.

WP:NPOV policy is absolute and must be followed. It shouldn't matter if editors or disagree or agree with a theory, the article still needs to be written to reflect the topic fairly. Putting the claim that scholars and historians all oppose it into the lead and even the proponents section is not only inaccurate but a clumsy attempt to push views onto the article every chance the editors had. DreamGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this is a very old, and tiresome, argument. This article is about a fringe theory; there are quotes from several different scholars that illustrate that this theory is not accepted within academia. The statements you've edited out may well be "personal opinions", but they are the opinions of authoritative scholars, found in reliable sources. If you think that scholars dispute that the JM hypothesis is a fringe theory, find some scholars that say so (and I mean biblical scholars and ancient historians who have published their opinions in peer-reviewed journal articles or other reliable sources, not people who have to start their own journals to get their ideas published, or self-publish on the internet). Your statement that "most people cited are more religious apologists based through churches and so forth instead of scholarly sources" utterly mischaracterizes the sources you're removing; Grant, Van Voorst, Burridge/Gould, etc. all hold (or held) academic positions.

As for your last paragraph, I agree that NPOV must be followed, and I agree that some editors are editing according to whether they agree or disagree with the theory that's the subject of this article. Unfortunately, what I see is that people who agree with the JM theory are constantly arguing that the theory is a mainstream part of the academic discussion about the historical Jesus, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Most fringe theories get no discussion in academic literature; for this subject, we're lucky enough to have statements such as that of Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2002), p. 145: "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." Since we have authoritative statements that the JM theory isn't accepted in academia, I can only conclude that when an editor removes such statements, they're motivated by their personal opinions. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

First off, let me deal with your assertion that the reason I took that quote out was because it said "notes." It was actually not only that - if that had been my only problem, I would have edited it myself. There were actually two other problems. Firstly, it was that this is not referenced - it says it's somewhere on the jesuspuzzle website, which it may well be, but it doesn't say where, so it can't be checked - it's not properly referenced at all. I mentioned that in my edit summary (although perhaps not clearly enough, as it appears that a recurring problem with my touchpad/keyboard which means if I brush my touchpad while typing I highlight stuff and immediately delete it as I touch it - therefore meaning part of that sentence was deleted, rendering the sentence very bad grammatically without me noticing it, but I do still mention referencing). The other problem, which I didn't mention, but I believed (hence using the word "perhaps" at the beginning of my edit summary), is that it's questionable whether this comment really belongs in that section. I know that the fact that I'm honest about my beliefs in my profile name might make you assume that I'm pushing a Christian POV in this article, but I really don't believe that I remotely am. In fact, I have in the past given extra space to Doherty's views in this section, and have had them edited back on the grounds I've just cited - I'm not convinced that they're correct, but wikipedia works by consensus.

Secondly, there are a number of citations in this article that show pretty conclusively that JM theory is a very marginal view among scholars, and therefore that deserves to go in the lead. I suggest you read WP:Undue if you're in any doubt about this. The references we cite come from Christians, atheists, and even the most prominent JM proponent.

Thirdly, please WP:AGF, and don't assume that my commitment to WP:NPOV is any less than yours, simply because I am religious. If any person ever thinks they're unbiased, that only shows they have an unusually low self-awareness. TJ (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)