Talk:Jesus myth theory/Archive1

The wizard of OZ stuff is not in keeping with the tone and quality of the rest of the article. I think it should be clipped. --DamoHi 06:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but disagree. It uses hyperbole to illustrate the faulty logic and reasoning behind arguments for using the Bible as the sole source of Jesus's existence and the lengths apologists have to go in order to make it work. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand that it is trying to illustrate the example with hyperbole. I just don't think it works.  In fact I think the whole thing falls flat.  --DamoHi 07:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think that was the author's intent. The Wizard of Oz analogy falls just as flat as the Jesus myth when analyzed in a similar way. That's just my take, though. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that I don't find it very convincing. On the other hand I've never read "The Wizard of OZ" so I don't understand the references. --BobSpring is sprung! 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Obscure references to the Wizard of Oz never help anything. ADK ...I'll run your tofu! 19:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The wizard of oz was INTENDED to be fiction. you cannot compare it to something that was intended to be historical.  If you find a writing about Buddha, or a writing on or about David Karesh (sp) you'd have a point.  but comparing a novel with a work that is intended to be at worst philosophy, and at best, literal history (from the perspective of Jesus is real) is simply not a valid argument.  When we find professional biographies, diaries, and amature "my life story" of unknown people we do not assume they are fiction, rather we FIRST assume they are real, until or unless we have reason to believe otherwise.  The same is true for ANY religious text.  we have statements of faith saying "my leader's name is George".  there is no reason to doubt that, cause few people lie about who their leader was.  They may or may not lie about what that leader did.  I say, find a better analogy.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, I find it an amusing way to highlight some of the techniques of apologetics. Although that's it, you're right about it not being an argument in itself because you're comparing something intended to be fictional with something intended to be non-fictional. However, I think the point is that intention to be non-fiction doesn't make it non-fiction. So your point is really a variant on presuppositionalism; if we presume Jesus was real, we find no reason to doubt it while if we presume Jesus is entire fictional we find no reason to believe it. Personally, I'm kinda torn and in the middle. I see no reason to presume that a bunch of authors got together and decided to co-ordinate and develop this "jesus character" just out of whole cloth (that's very conspiracy theory like thinking, IMHO) but at the same time I have little intention of taking the Bible as evidence that the Bible is historical or even vaguely accurate. The simple fact is that we lack any corroborating evidence to suggest that it is an accurate documentary of Jesus' life and very existence, so we're left with the thought that people getting together just to make it up out of nowhere is as far fetched as the actual Bible itself. ADK ...I'll pander your dog! 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While it's true we lack corroborative evidence, that's more an issue of "level of confidence" than an issue of "not happened". Again, virtually everything in history - from the writings on egpytian walls, to obscure greek philosophiers lacks "corroborative evidence".  Luckily, that's not the only thing historians trust.  They look at the history of similar writings (were Egyptian kings famous for exaggerations? Did Jewish religious types typically invent events to prove their prophecies were coming true?  etc. )  History is an attempt to figure out what happens, from the scraps you have.  There are some 30-50 known prophets and reformers (like Jesus) running around for the 200 years before and after Jesus.  The time was unsettling for the Jewish religion.   Most of them had churches that popped up under their name, and popped out of existence in 10 or 20 years, when "nothing changed".  I personally think, the only reason Xianity and Jesus became anything other than one more of them, who none of us would be here debating, cuase there would be no reason to deny he had a small group of followers - is paul.  Paul has a separate, distinct, political, non jewish theology - and he needed someone to hang it on.  he needed a jewish guy to be *the* messiah, and happened upon this story of one dumb jewish dude who pissed off the wrong people and was killed.  Had there been no paul, jesus and maybe even Luke/Acts would have gone down in history and we would have found it, and said "oh, another babtist, another holy dude".
 * The thing about what to compare the jesus stories with, I do think there is a very valid reason to compare them to things like Zeus or the Aztec myths. We all see those as "myths", as stories about things that never happened.  And even if there was a hint of truth (which probably, in every story, myth or tall tale, there's a speck of truth) in them - look at what they become.    I think no one would go on a quest to prove the son of Quzuqutal existed.  OR try to show that the Virgin Birth of both Horus and Dyonisis existed.  That is the analogy, I think.  Religious stories that are myth.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  13:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that it's a "level of confidence" question rather than a black and white "no additional evidence = total bullshit". Though when comparing them to other religious stories, specifically the pantheons of Zeus and Odin, I think we need to look at the "intention" also; were these documents intended to be fictional or historical or allegorical? Certainly the overlap between gods and mortals in Greek mythology is a little blurred, as if they're taking events that may be historical and writing historical fiction about them where the gods take an active and narrative role. The Trojan war being the archetypical example of it as the Greeks recording it were very much under the impression it was historically factual. ADK ...I'll exorcise your chiffon! 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's kinda the exact thing that was ruminating in my head. I remember in the 80's in my undergrad courses, I had a class that suggested things the "the amazon" were likely factual, as well as Atlantis, etc., because other things Herodotus  had mentioned --other "far out" things-- turned out to be sorta factual. I never followed up on it, so I don't even know if this prof was talking out of her tush, but I think the fine blending of "some fact" with "lots of revision to make those facts fit our holy books, and other revisions to make those facts be god like" is probably the foundation of most religious myths/viewpoints. --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a piece on Sherlock Holmes makes more sense and is in better keeping with what apologists are trying to do:

Fact 1: John H. Watson existed: A John H. Watson can be found among the list of soldiers that served in the First Boer War (1880-1881) which fit Watson's often refereed to war wound.

Fact 2: Baker Street existed: Maps of 1881-1914 London show that Baker Street really existed.

Fact 3: Preserving confidentiality: Since Holmes depended on confidentiality in many of his cases one would expect Watson to disguise the names of the people involved and even dates to preserve this confidentiality which he does to the point of having Holmes visit public places on Sunday (impossible for the time period)

Fact 4: Every genuine case has a date: William S. Baring-Gould's 1968 Annotated Sherlock Holmes shows that if you do enough research a real date for every "genuine" (there are a few that are said to be fiction) case can be found.

Fact 5: The correspondence: In 1932 the Abbey National Building Society moved to 219–229 Baker Street... and had to employ a full time secretary whose only job was to answer letters addressed to Sherlock Holmes.

People wouldn't send letters to a fictional character, we have proof John H. Watson and Baker Street existed, and we can explain any discrepancies in the cases...therefore Sherlock Holmes must have really existed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both analogies are useless for all the reasons outlined above. 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy?
We already have a Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article where a good hunk of "The usual "contemporary proofs"" section could reside and is to some degree duplicated. I think we should go with summations and reference to that article rather than the repeating we currently have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If presented correctly, they are actually very different things (though if you've read the current "evidence" page, you'll see i'm not a fan of that page). one is the very "positive" statement that "jesus is a myth", without acknowledging the views of historians, or claiming those views are compromised.  The other is the actual physical evidence about Jesus, the 2nd and 3rd level evidence about jesus that Historians rely on.  (There is not much, but despite our article that says otherwise, historians do say there is some.)  Anyhow, they are different issues.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem as pointed out in the article itself is that "jesus is a myth" has many different meanings even if you hold to the historical myth side of things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dump the article then. ;-)   I think they CAN be made distint.  I think "evidence of jesus" could be focused to really talk about the evidence, and not the evaluation of the evidence, adn this article could talk about academic people (Price, for one) who really posit the idea that jesus is, pragmatically, a myth - regardless of his reality or not.  I think, for me, that is the difference.  Price states (as this article seems to imply) that real or not, the STORY is so fucking overwheming anything "real" that the existance of jesus is fully irrelevant.  just an idea. --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  03:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is you can't really talk about the evidence without evaluating it because that is part of the evidence. It is akin to the "evidence" used regarding the Bermuda Triangle which I think David Kusche summed up so well: "Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."
 * As late at 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10 (1919) edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray). Try making that statement today and see how well it goes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there is certainly considerable overlap between the two articles. But I would also maintain that they are two different subjects. Another point is that this one seems over-long.  Ideally it should be split up in some way.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's a bit too long. The 'notable advocates' section is just filler from when this article was almost a stub. It seems like a waste of space now. Would anyone object to its removal? --Danfly (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as many of these people are handled better on the general wikipedia article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "historians" in question are "biblical historians", who are considered jokes by actual historians. Looks like it's time to add another 30KB to the other article - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read
Is This Not the Carpenter and the related book for some excellent scholarship on this question Scherben (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As the article points out we now have Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 1-909697-49-2, "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review" and there are some interesting details in that work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesus and King Arthur
A comparison could be made between Jesus and Arthur (quite apart from the Holy Grail and Glastonbury connections).

A time of turmoil and an incoming new power (Judea - the Romans, Britannia - Hengist and Horsa etc).

Central figures to whom much myth/other non-factual material has become attached.

It is generally agreed that 'King Arthur' is based on an 'actual historical person or persons.' (The stories having become amalgamated - and probably including local leaders, a Roman legionary or officer, and a leader of a British warband (whether or not riding black horses).) This would explain why there are so many 'real Arthurs' - like the elephant all the reports are true in part.

The historical person(s) upon Jesus-of-the-Gospels was based included a rabbi (of much learning) and 'an opponent of the present rulers' (with Judas Iscariot the Siccari being connected with the latter).

The stories are written up considerably after the event (having been retold many times) - there are distortions arising and material is selected which is seen as relevant rather than 'all that there is' - with different groups selecting different material (hence the Gospels diverge).

Can the comparison be taken further? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No. Both analogies are useless for all the reasons outlined above.  16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP editor states It is generally agreed that 'King Arthur' is based on an 'actual historical person or persons'. This is news to me and, apparently, to wikipedia. But I suspect the the existence of some human non-magical form of Christ is marginally more probable than a King Arthur. Wouldn't bet on either of them though.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

John Frum cargo cult
I'm not sure that the fourth paragraph (John Frum cargo cult) belongs in the introduction. To be honest I'm, not entirely clear on what it's saying.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cut it. It's below for posterity.


 * The John Frum cargo cult shows that the cult version (literate white US serviceman that appeared to the village elders in a vision on February 15, 1931) and historical version (illiterate native named Manehivi who caused trouble using that name in 1941 and was exiled from the island as a result) of religion's "founder" can become effectively two different people in as short as 17 years. 
 * in case anybody wants to put it back in.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

literate white US serviceman
I doubt any US serviceman would be much more "literate" than knowing an alphabet. They could hardly write, all they could do was to transcribe their speach into an alphabet. Perhaps they had learned how former English dialects were written, but that's irrelevant when writing to people with unrelated languages, often even more harmfull to understanding. The assumption that only "white US serviceman" [sic] were "literate" says more about rationalwiki.org than about others. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes the soldiers of cargo cults were almost certainly literate. Native-born(not to be confused with native) Americans from the 1940s had a 97% literacy rate.  The people of cargo cults were, by and large, not literate.  Melanesian Cargo cults also responded to Japanese cargo deliveries, but those were not documented to the same extent Frum's observations were.  The point was the relatively short time span religions can crop up.  Please try to understand what you're responding to, as you seem to have locked onto the term "white" and "literate" as implicitly racist, without event attempting an understanding the statement being made.  Ikanreed (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even spelling "men" (as the plural of "man") seems too hard for fans of "white US serviceman". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pal, that's called a typo. It happens.  Ikanreed (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote '"white US serviceman" [sic]"'. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And it isn't a typo: http://www.goodtyping.com/teclatUS.htm --80.114.178.7 (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Singular "serviceman" (just one of him) is what it says. Why do you think it should be plural? Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The absence of "a" or "the" before "(literate white US serviceman". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "John Frum was a literate white US serviceman that appeared to the village elders..." has it. The other places don't need it. ("John Frum's identity varied from Melanesian native, to black serviceman, to white navy serviceman" and one similar time in the intro.) Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In "([literate white] US serviceman that appeared", we need "a serviceman", "the serviceman", "the servicemen", (some of the) "servicemen", or "Serviceman" (if you insist on the existance of the "Literate White US Serviceman", but that requires more edits, and the denial of "literate white US servicemen" besides the alleged John Frum).
 * It is a parallel construction to "(illiterate native named Manehivi..." One could say that both of those instances need an "i.e." in the parenthetical phrase, but the text is understandable without that, too. Fiddly grammatical details aside, I think you are reading prejudice into the text where there isn't any. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

BoN edits
Anyone know enough to confirm/deny these edits? Scream!! (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering about "suggested"->"proved" re: Tacitus - Bruce? - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It was proved in 2008 via ultraviolet light, that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning "good, useful", rather than strictly a follower of "Christ".


 * As for the Paul thing that is confirmed by Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 515. The changes are therefore unjustified and I have restored them back with the added references.


 * Carrier goes over the dates of the Gospels noting them as "arbitrary ballpark figures with don't really have much basis in facts."  He puts Mark 70-80 because it seems to relate to the Jewish war of 70 CE, he goes with 80s to 90 for Matthew just to "err on the side of the earliest likely period, and for no other reason", Luke Acts gets a 90s-120s range and John clocks in as being possibly as late as the 140s. (OHJ 266-70)--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with trend in Old Testament research
It may be worth mentioning how in OT research (even outside Genesis), the trend to doubt or outright dismiss the historicity of people (especially the patriarchs), events (such as the Exodus), kingdoms, tribes and settlements has been virulent for quite some time and become mainstream indeed, even though the historicity of a towering figure such as King David is not considered decisively refuted (yet?). But the overall tendency in academia – as opposed to the general public – to consider the scriptures more myth than history is quite evident, and strikingly parallels developments in NT research, except that that field is still more resistant to questioning the historicity of its central figure, of course. Compare The Bible Unearthed. (I bet the name "Finkelstein" is not particularly popular in Israel these days.) If questioning Abraham's or David's existence is acceptable, why should questioning Jesus' existence be anathema or ridiculous, on the face of it? In the light of OT scholarship, and his own contributions to NT scholarship, Ehrman's knee-jerk dismissive attitude to HJ scepticism is all the more puzzling; sceptics have all kinds of well-grounded reasons to scrutinise the alleged evidence for and against the historicity of Jesus very, very closely. The same goes for others who like to ridiculise mythicists and paint them as hypersceptical, or even everyone who does not take the historicity of Jesus for granted, likening them to truthers or birthers (a denunciation which some historicity sceptics have appropriated with the "Jesus birther" movement). Also, the point that similar academic developments to Jesus mythicism are taking a lot of time to filter through to the general public is worth underlining: what sounds radical or ridiculous to the average Joe (e. g.: "gender is a social construct, and what is considered 'masculine' or 'feminine' is everything but fixed") can be well-established in academia sometimes. Appeals to "common sense" are to be distrusted. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Would the real Historical Jesus please stand up?
I think it's also worth noting that the distinction between minimalism (Jesus existed but that's about as much as we can say; called here "reductive"), "compositism" (Jesus is based on a composite of various historical existing personalities – some of which we know of through Josephus, for example) and mythicism is rather subtle. Once you get somebody to admit that what is certain about Jesus is extremely little, I think it's easy to argue that this solid core is so tiny that the historical figure supposedly at the basis turns out to be unrecoverably generic; if there were so many itinerant Jewish miracle-working apocalyptic preachers and cult leaders in 1st century Judaea, who claimed to be the messiah, incited failed rebellions and were severely punished by the Romans or Jews (or had at least broadly similar biographies), and if the name Jesus was this common, which is essentially the rationale for "compositism", you could also argue that the figure of Jesus was based on a generic type rather than a single, identifiable person. That is, even if you had a time machine and could travel back to the place and time in question, you would have a hard time trying to determine which of the many confusingly similar candidates should be the "real" Jesus. The problem of the Historical Jesus then ironically turns out to be not that there is none, but that there are too many of them! And that's a problem the HJ research has to grapple with already, it's not an invention of ebil hypersceptics. I see now this point is also made in Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ already. --84.151.172.34 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New Article: Modern Mythicism
I. Gospel Skepticism - Thomas L. Thompson II. Semi-Mythicism (Christ Mythicism): Plausible alternative for the origin of an historical Jesus and Christianity III. Neo-Mythicism: Plausible alternative for the origin of an ahistorical Jesus and Christianity - Richard Carrier IV. Atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians - Raphael Lataster 69.197.181.194 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC) & 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) & 17:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert M. Price
 * Thomas L. Brodie
 * Randel Helms
 * Michael Vines
 * Dennis R. MacDonald
 * G. A. Wells
 * Kurt Noll
 * Neil Godfrey
 * Tim Widowfield
 * Frank Zindler
 * Richard Carrier
 * Tom Dykstra
 * Emanuel Pfoh
 * René Salm


 * Gospel Skepticism existed long before Thomas L. Thompson. Sir James George Frazer and before him David Strauss come to mind.  Furthermore, a new article would not address the fact people who accepted Jesus existed as a flesh and blood person (Frazer and Strauss were called "mystists")--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am thinking that it should be more of a current report along the lines of the following reports:
 * Decoding Jesus: Separating man from myth
 * Did Jesus really exist?
 * A Growing Number of Scholars Are Questioning the Historical Existence of Jesus
 * With the Jesus myth theory and Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ articles as reference sources. - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The only issue is that most (but not all) Modern Mythicism borrows heavily from older theories and premises. For example Remsburg was arguing against the Gospel Jesus rather then a flash and blood man and concluded that there was a man behind the myth but the Gospels and Paul told use nothing about that man (other then he existed).  This "Christ Myth" (Remburg identifies it as such) is becoming (or has become depending on where you draw the line) mainstream.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC


 * A Semi-Mythicism section and Notes section could address the interaction of previous/legacy theories and premises.
 * Neo-Mythicism begins with Couchoud: "[Per the Writings of Paul-Louis Couchoud] The controversy as to the historical existence of Jesus ..appeared [in France] under a new form, entirely distinct from the theories of Drews, J. M. Robertson, and W. B. Smith. It is of some interest to describe this new aspect of the thesis that the history of Jesus is a myth, and to try to explain the genesis of the contention." []

Per Aaron Adair,
 * Content from the following talks could also be incorporated:

"Some time back, for my local Secular Student Alliance (SSA) group, I gave a talk about what we can know about the historical Jesus, and perhaps he was originally a non-historical figure made flesh. This proposition is not the least bit popular among academics, let alone Evangelicals, but it isn’t necessarily crazy either. You will find some comparing it to Holocaust denial or creationism, but the evidence that Jesus existed is nowhere near as strong as it is for evolution or the Nazi-led Holocaust. There is significant evidence for Jesus, prima facie, but things get hairy when you look again."

"The basic points: the only independent sources we have about the life of Jesus are Christian, there is only one such source (the Gospel of Mark), and it is written in a way that is more fiction than anything else. There are also difficulties in understanding how a Galilean Jew went from nice bloke to god-made-flesh very early on as seen in the letters of Paul, and why the first Christians who followed a Roman criminal were not harassed by the pagan authorities early on as attested by Christian sources (namely, Acts). There is also the weird issue of why there were many that believed Jesus lived and died a century earlier than is the standard chronology; how did that happen? After these points, I get into the most plausible Jesus myth hypothesis (there are plenty of crappy ones) which can answer these problems, though it has its own hurdles."
 * The Jesus of History & The Christ of Myth (YouTube video) - Oct 18, 2013

Per Peter Nothnagle,

"The too-long, didn’t-read version: When lined up in the order in which they were composed, the accounts of the life and works of Jesus reveal that he was originally worshipped as a celestial being who never had a body, never had a ministry or disciples, and never appeared in person to anyone. Later writings brought him “down to earth” in physical form, adding increasingly fantastic story elements as time went on, in tales which were carefully set in a time and locale conveniently inaccessible to verification. While Christian writings all show signs of continual reworking as the theology evolved (an activity that continues to this day!), there are no independent accounts of Jesus or any of his supposed disciples from the entire century during which the religion supposedly began."

"I conclude that the figure of Jesus was invented by one faction in a diverse religious landscape in an effort to create an “apostolic succession” of authority – ‘our priests were taught by priests that were taught by followers of Jesus Christ himself, in person’. But even if I’m completely wrong about that, it is undeniable that the only evidence that exists for a living, breathing, walking, talking Jesus is weak, contradictory, or simply fraudulent. Therefore no one can be justified in believing that such a person existed." 69.197.181.194 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jesus: Fact or Fiction? (PDF talk transcript) - March 29, 2016


 * Perhaps I am missing something but I don't see how this really differs from the two related but also parallel lines of thought formed by Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis. I noticed that Couchoud covers some of the same area as Drews and Remsburg:


 * "That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written." - Remsburg, The Christ (1909)


 * "If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." (Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth)


 * "Jesus is an unknown historical figure. It is possible that he may have lived, since millions of people have lived without leaving a trace. It is not enough to declare 'We know nothing about Jesus, except that he existed'. On the contrary, we must boldly assert that 'We do not know anything about him, not even whether he existed'. - Couchoud, The Enigma of Jesus (1923)


 * Am I missing something obvious here?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Per Earl Doherty, "It was at the opening of the 20th century that the first serious presentations of the Jesus Myth theory appeared. The earliest efforts by such as Robertson, Drews, Jensen and Smith were, from a modern point of view, less than perfect, lacking a comprehensive explanation for all aspects of the issue. Pre-Christian cults, astral religions, obscure parallels with foreign cultures, even the epic of Gilgamesh, went into a somewhat hodge-podge mix; many of them didn’t seem to know quite what to do with Paul. It wasn’t until the 1920s that Paul-Louis Couchoud in France offered a more coherent scenario, identifying Christ in the eyes of Paul as a spiritual being. (While not relying upon him, I would trace my type of thinking back to Couchoud, rather than the more recent G. A. Wells who, in my opinion, misread Paul’s understanding of Christ.)" [ref. Earl Doherty’s forerunner? Paul-Louis Couchoud and the birth of Christ by Neil Godfrey 2011-12-15] - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Per Couchoud, "[Jesus as Presented by Paul] A divine Being, in humility without parallel, assumes the human condition. He is crucified by supernatural agents, the Princes of this Age, who are, in Paul's language, Satan and his acolytes. ...The crucifixion, as presented by Paul, is that of a super natural being executed by beings who are also supernatural."
 * First published: "The Historicity of Jesus" in The Hibbert Journal 37, (1938). p.193-214
 * - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Couchoud tried gave the disjointed mess called "Christ Myth" a focus rather then the shot gun approach (hope something...anything hits) but as with many things the pieces were already there:

"The corporeal existence of the Christ of the Evangelists receives slight confirmation in the writings of Paul. His Christ was not the incarnate Word of John, nor the demi-god of Matthew and Luke. Of the immaculate conception of Jesus he knew nothing. To him Christ was the son of God in a spiritual rather than in a physical sense. ...The Christ that Paul saw in a vision was a spiritual being—an apparition; and this appearance he considers of exactly the same character as the post mortem appearances of Christ to his disciples." - Remsburg The Christ (1909)

[Per the Writings of Paul-Louis Couchoud] The controversy as to the historical existence of Jesus ..appeared [in France] under a new form, entirely distinct from the theories of Drews, J. M. Robertson, and W. B. Smith. It is of some interest to describe this new aspect of the thesis that the history of Jesus is a myth, and to try to explain the genesis of the contention. - [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/div-classtitlerecent-french-discussion-of-the-historical-existence-of-jesus-christdiv/67E220B531FE6D3C81EE56D5EFFF4FA4 Goguel, Maurice (April 1926). "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ". Harvard Theological Review 19 (02): 115. DOI:10.1017/S001781600000763X]

So did Couchoud question the man himself or the history presented of that man?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC).


 * "[Per Paul-Louis Couchoud] The salient fact about Jesus ...is that he is a God. Paul, the earliest extant Christian author (eight of whose reputed epistles Couchoud regards as basically genuine, though much edited and interpolated), treats Jesus as God." []


 * Couchoud, Doherty, and Carrier share the same viewpoint that the Pauline epistles are positive evidence that Jesus was originally a god, who was later historicized. Per Goguel, this viewpoint should be labelled as "Neo-Mythicism". - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "Neo-Mythicism" is used in the 1890s and was (in some works) connected with Neo-Kantism which goes back to Immanuel Kant and was formalized in Arthur Schopenhauer's critique The World as Will and Representation (1818). More over looking for "Neo-Mythicism" and "Christ myth" got me a grand total of one work.  Now Neo-Mysticism and "Christ myth" was a little better result but not by much.  Also I had to weed out an results for "Neo-Mysticism" in this search.  This is less then ideal.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The label, be it: "Jesus Neo-Mythicism", "Celestial-Jesus Neo-Mythicism" or "Couchoud, Doherty, Carrier Mythicism" is secondary to the point that the Couchoud, Doherty, Carrier viewpoint is radically distinct as attested by Goguel and Doherty. And in regards to "Modern Mythicism", it is is the strongest case for Jesus ahistoricity (with positive evidence given in support) thus it should be presented as such in a new article. The historical nuance and problems of terminology are already covered in the article Jesus myth theory and should be noted as a reference for elaboration of the problem. - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution
Per vridar.org, Neil Godfrey's work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Does that mean that Godfrey's content that may appropriate for an article may be cut and pasted with proper attribution ? - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversing the question
What was the cultural-political climate in Judea 'during the second half of the reign of Tiberius'? How many 'stand in the street "repent now or else" street preachers/blockers of the footpaths, conventional preachers, and anti-'Roman imperialism' preachers and activists were there?

To what extent does the 'historicity' section in Wikipedia's article on Robin Hood apply to Jesus?

As another example of material jumping from fiction to myth. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO any conclusion of a legendary Jesus is untenable. Since legendary stories deform real facts, as R. M. Price writes, "I realized, after studying much previous research on the question [of Jesus], that virtually every story in the gospels and Acts can be shown to be very likely a Christian rewrite of material from the Septuagint, Homer, Euripides' Bacchae, and Josephus. ...A literary origin is always to be preferred to an historical one in such a case. And that is the choice we have to make in virtually every case of New Testament narrative. [...] There may once have been an historical Jesus, but for us there is one no longer. If he existed, he is forever lost behind the stained glass curtain of holy myth. At least that's the current state of the evidence as I see it." - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "legendary" has the same definition problem "myth" does; it doesn't that the stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood have varied from being called myths to being called legends. The definition of  "A legend is presumed to have some basis in historical fact and tends to mention real people or events."  (Legend vs. Myth) doesn't help as the Gospels mention real people and real places.  Personally I think Robertson's idea of Jesus being a composite character is the most likely; it would go a long way to explaining why you have stories of Jesus living outside the normally accepted c6 BC - c36 CE period.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Robert M Price - The Bible Geek Podcast 17-006 (Tuesday, February 14th 2017, 57m) - What constitutes a historic Jesus @ time 01:10 - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Price's "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." appears in the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and is the reference for the "Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE." point in this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * IMO this is Price rejecting semi-mythicism as Jesus ahistoricity theory (mythicism) and rightly noting it as dissident historicity theory. - 69.197.181.194 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Scholars such as Bruuno Bauer, Arthur Drews, and G.A. Wells have argued that the Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature (i.e, "legendary" as we are using the term)" (sic) - Eddy-Boyd (2007)
 * I might add that Carrier puts G.A. Wells in the ahistoricity camp while as per above Eddy-Boyd put him in the Christ Myth camp. More over Eddy-Boyd put Price's Jesus Agnosticism into this category as well.
 * If that wasn't enough Eddy-Boyd expressly includes Wells' Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth as examples of this...despite both works accepting that there was a historical Jesus behind the Gospel accounts (Wells actual argument was that the account was altered to fit Paul's vision and Jesus actually lived to an old age and died in obscurity)
 * So the term "legendary" is totally useless as it has entered into the same Humpy Dumpty Through the Looking Glass land that the term Christ Myth as been sitting in for more then a century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The opinion of the overwhelming majority of secular historians (as in all of them, and I'm talking about real scholars with an at least adequate publishing history or position at an academic institution) is that Jesus was historical -- I'm seeing a bunch of nonsense theories in this talk page. Robert Price is obviously a lunatic. Regarding GA Wells, the renowned scholar David Aikman notes "Wells is not a New Testament specialist at all but a professor of German and a former chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He has written several books rejecting the historicity of Jesus, a position almost no New Testament scholar endorses, even those who are radically opposed to Christianity."


 * Unsurprisingly though, G.A. Wells is not completely stupid like the other mythicists (Carrier, Doherty, Price), and so in the last some years he has actually admitted Jesus did exist, but that the NT writings are too unreliable to particularly know anything about him. Price was a baby about it and claimed that G.A. Wells was still in some way a sort of mythicist. Anyways, not even Wells accepts mythicism anymore, and so the current RationalWiki article needs to be updated. It either must completely remove his name from the page, or make it enormously clear he has recently rejected mythicism.Korvexman (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * While I agree there was a kernel of truth on Christ, it's very difficult to take seriously the gospels when there're so many discrepancies between them and his physical aspect is nowhere described -they do not seem more reliable than the versions of, say, the Hercules myth.


 * Just my two cents. --Panzerfaust (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't how you can say Carrier is "completely stupid" when he is the only person to put together a peer reviewed book on the matter and even then he doesn't say that is a slam dunk that Jesus didn't exist just that the odds taht Jesus existed as a human being are, at best, 1 in 3. Also, as pointed out in the article itself and in previous parts of this talk page it wasn't just Price who called G.A. Wells a mythist after he said there was a Jesus behind the Gospels but Eddy-Boyd and Earl Doherty as well. In fact, Van Voorst and Carrier seem to be the only ones who realized that Grant wasn't in the Jesus didn't exist at all part of the Jesus myth camp and Carrier was the only one to argue Grant had never been in that part of the mythist camp to being with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Poor
What is the impression this article creates exactly? What I get is that Jesus Myth is a small but valid theory held by a number of new testament scholars, and perhaps one day it will be accepted into the mainstream. The reality is that no new testament scholars today at accredited institutions follow it. None. As the articles 3rd citation states "among new testament scholars and historians, the theory of Jesus' nonexistence remains effectively dead as a scholarly question." And the article uses this citation to back up the line "It has been accepted by some academics." No really.

Reading through the article, does one get the impression that Hector Avalos and Bart Ehrman both follow Jesus Myth theories to some extent? Yes. Check out this quote from the article: ""In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity"[28] (Ehrman's position)" But that isn't Ehrman's position at all. That's Ehrman's definition of Jesus Myth theories, from a book in which he debunks Jesus Myth theories. Here's another Ehrman quote: "The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is overwhelming when looked at through the objective lens of the historian." (actually Ehrman's position)

I'm not going to go into the details of the arguments for and against the actual theory. As with any crackpot conspiracy there will be people who can argue it to death and think they have the answers despite no education in the topic. But what can surely be improved regardless is the peripheral presentation of this theory as being in any way academic. There should be a clear distinction between experts (Robert Price, Richard Carrier) and non-experts (GA Wells, RG Price), the degree to which it has been debated historically should be clear (debated a lot in the early 20th century, not debated at all today), and most importantly, experts who are featured in the article like Ehrman and Avalos should not be misrepresented or implied to believe this crap.Araka (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Richard Carrier and Robert M Price are indeed trustworthy experts (as is Ehrman). In short, the general list of crap scholars among faith-driven historicists is literally just as long as is the equivalent list of cranky mythicists.
 * Both this article and the article on the historical Jesus have grown convoluted to the point of outright detriment, and both of them really ought to be nuked and re-written from the ground up with the focus of invalidating crank claims, rather than making its own claims (as is the current case), because we are not a wiki an encyclopedia. And — for reasons of acute readability, if nothing else — not just written by User:BruceGrubb alone this time. Literally all we're waiting for now is someone who would bother doing this (read: start from scratch in a sandbox) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out the convolutedness is due the "crank claims" in the talk pages and on the internet. Besides as Carrier himself states the majority of Jesus myth theories are bad...as in convoluted messes that require mammoth conspiracies or connections long proven to be nonsense to work.   They are effectively self made strawmen thanks to how awful they are.
 * As far that "we are not a wiki" comment; perhaps you forgot that this is Rationalwiki. Heck, wikipedia itself states "RationalWiki (RW) is a wiki whose stated aims are to critique and challenge pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and analyze how these subjects are handled in the media." and "A wiki (/ˈwɪki/ is a website on which users collaboratively modify content and structure directly from the web browser."  What off the wall definitions are you using?
 * Regarding Ehrman he points out that a Jesus who existed (ie was historical) but didn't found Christianity would fall into the "mythical" category. So a Jesus who actually preached a form of Judaism that became Christianity a while after his death would be a "mythical" Jesus (Remsburg's position).   He comes off as trying to eat his cake and have it too.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, regarding my phrasing. We are a wiki. What I meant to say is: we are not a -pedia (read: encyclopedia). As such, correcting "wiki" for "encyclopedia" in my above comment, my point stands perfectly well (as has been linked previous already).


 * Regarding Ehrman — I would agree with you that Ehrman is, in a sense, the historicist that's done the most for the mythicist cause. Carrier and Price even discuss this fact in the beginning of this lecture. The guys joke that Ehrman's a bit of an unwitting mythicist or something to that effect. Said in all humor though, of course — they actually respect Ehrmans' position a lot. Carrier and Price, like Ehrman, are real scholars of quality. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that both article are way too long but these points keep coming up in the literature; the inconstant use of "Christ Myth " or "historical Jesus" case in point be it 1900 or 2000. It is, to put it simply, an Alice In Wonderland via the Looking Glass with Humpty Dumpty overdosing on the caterpillar's hookah mess. What the terms even meam varies from author to author. People who did not throw Jesus the man out with Jesus the demigod bathwater (Frazier, Drews, Remsburg, G.A. Wells, etc) have been called "mythists". The armchair brigades both sides have is certainly no help as they both provided an insane amount of nonsense turning both sides into strawmen, and some of the experts are little better.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Josephus DOES mention Jesus
You can debate whether or not Jesus was a larger than life character or not, but he most likely existed. This article by Atheist Historian Tim O'Neill pretty much destroys the argument the Jesus Ben Damneus argument:

https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/ 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is a rambling mess and avoids the a key problem with the James reference: why would a piece which was to push the idea of Vespasian being the Christ only use the term in reference to someone else? Furthermore, as pointed out in the Josephus article, the James piece has logistic problems.  The biggest is for centuries it was assumed that James brother of the Lord died c69 CE some seven years after the James in Josephus was dead and gone.  More over there is "The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching..."  Now Peter is thought to died no earlier then 64 CE and possibly as late as 67 CE some two years after the James in Josephus was dead and gone.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Prophecies" regarding Jesus
Much of Mathew reads "prophecies" that are at best questionable and many when read in context are not. Then there are those who add "prophecies" to Mathew's text that he himself doesn't claim. One such example is Numbers 24:17 which is not referenced anywhere in the New Testament. Besides the appearance of stars, comets, and certain configurations were seen a potent of things to come both good and ill. Heck, it was claimed that Augustus' birth was foreshadowed by a "public portent". There is nothing other then speculation that Mathew got the idea of a star from anywhere in the Old Testament. It could just as easily come from somewhere else.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * References and reuses of tropes can be implicit as well as explicit. Jesus's and John are a pair in the model of Elijah and Elisha (miracles; the passing of the prophetic mantle etc.), yet very little reference to Kings is made within the NT. The Gospels follow the common ANE myth of a 'good king' who will restore creation and destroy evil, bringing about universal shalom. Numbers 24:17 is very much within that myth's motif, and the idea that Matthew 'ran with it' is perfectly valid. Thanks for clarifying the matter, however. --Scherben (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)