Essay talk:Critics of the historicity of Jesus

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quotes[edit]

For those not comfortable with page editing, post a quote here. --Dbz (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't get the point of this article[edit]

This might be the most unsourced article I've ever seen (even the Wikipedia articles on average don't mention that these names are Critics of the historicity of Jesus), supposing the user writing this article manages to add sources for at least most of the names here I don't see how it can be missional. Only three names have their own articles on RW. In my opinion the title is also misleading. Take for instance the "Despite many other flaws, the gospels support a rounded figure and a historical Jesus certainly existed" category. Well, pretty much every non-Biblical literalist will agree on this one. This is not criticism of historicity of Jesus, it is criticism of the historicity of the Bible. GeeJayK (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The lede states "This list in general (but not specifically) presents scholars and commentators who...". User:BruceGrubb can we get your opinion? --Dbz (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
And how is this listicle relevant to RW mission? GeeJayK (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This article is an unbiased more expansive articles of "List of Christ myth theory proponents".  Wikipedia.

Cf.

--Dbz (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, maybe it works for Wikipedia. But we're not Wikipedia. How does it fit RW mission?
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Also being unbiased doesn't mean a lot. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, we're supposed to be accurate. GeeJayK (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
What in your opinion is inaccurate in the content of this article? --Dbz (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Answering your question, it lacks sources and the definitons are a bit vague. But my main problem here is, how is this listicle missional? GeeJayK (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, you have identified nothing inaccurate in the content of this article. --Dbz (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't need to. I said we have to be accurate, not unbiased. That was my only post about accuracy. But supposing the article is accurate (the lack of sources is a huge problem). This is not the major issue here. Again, what is missional about this article? GeeJayK (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
"the lack of sources is a huge problem". Looks at bottom of article. 51 references. Excuse me?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
You have more than 100 unsourced names on the listicle. But as I said supposing the user writing this article manages to add sources for at least most of the names here I don't see how it can be missional. What is missional about this article? GeeJayK (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
And you haven't deleted them...why? I checked the history and you have not edited the article...at all.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The definitons are a bit vague[edit]

the definitions are a bit vague —User:GeeJayK

Please list the definitions that you consider to be vague. --Dbz (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I've already mentioned them in my first post. Now, are you going to tell me why is this listicle missional? That's the main issue here. Even if the article was well-sourced and less vague I would still make this thread because I can't see anything missional here. GeeJayK (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, you do not list the definitions you consider to be a bit vague, and instead go off topic for this talk section and rant. --Dbz (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
As I said before, I've already told you. Since you're not going to tell me why the article is missional even though I've asked you six time we'll have to do it the hard way then. I'll nominate this article for deletion tomorrow. GeeJayK (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Considering the very definition of "historicity" is all over the map (see Jesus myth theory for what a mess the definition even is) and the rate the quotes there are growing this article is could serve as a release valve for it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
That's because that article is also bad. I'll probably nominate it for deletion in the future too. GeeJayK (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ On what grounds? You claimed "the Shill gambit part of the article" but failed to produced the section is where this supposed "Shill gambit" when the issue was raised way back in March and have made no efforts in even editing the Jesus myth theory article to point out this supposed issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's because I didn't have time. Anyway, we can discuss that article on its own talk page. I still want to know why is this listicle remotely missional. GeeJayK (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
You don't have the time to reply to an issue raised on the talk but have time to reply here? You had four months to formulate a reply over there. As for being on mission you said it yourself:
"Documenting the full range of crank ideas;" If the Criticism of the historicity of Jesus (which varies on who is doing the defining) is a crank idea than it follows this article is on topic. While the Jesus myth theory has become larger than I like but it is on topic and with a ridiculous 384 references better sourced than most wikipedia articles. Never mind deletion should be the final option not the first reply regarding an article (ie "I'll probably nominate it for deletion in the future too").--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The topic of this talk-section is "The definitons are a bit vague" not rant about "I still want to know why is this listicle remotely missional". --Dbz (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've already answered that. See my post on Will Durant. Will you tell me why this article is missional now? GeeJayK (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
What post on Will Durant? There is nothing here other than the post right above and I know from the history that you haven't edited the article itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
My mistake. In any case the answer is on my first post. Can you please tell me why this article is missional now? GeeJayK (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Christopher, Bongolian, and Cosmikdebris found nothing wrong which this article when they edited it (ie they considered if on mission). Heck, Christopher added +2,981 after asking if the article was needed at all - showing at least for him it was on mission.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I asked you, Bruce. Why is this listicle missional? GeeJayK (talk)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have already answered that point, twice.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You said that this article could serve as a release valve for another bloated article and that other users also edited this article (so we should conclude a fortiori that they also find it missional). Are these your answers on why this article is missional? GeeJayK (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia mention of these names[edit]

Wikipedia articles on average don't mention that these names are Critics of the historicity of Jesus —User:GeeJayK
Wikipedia mentions by name of "Christ myth theory proponents"
John M. Allegro
Bruno Bauer
Dan Barker
Bruno Bauer
Albert Bayet
Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga
Gerard Bolland
Emilio Bossi
Georg Brandes
Thomas L. Brodie
Richard Carlile
Edward Carpenter
Richard Carrier
Paul-Louis Couchoud
Herbert Cutner
Arthur Drews
Earl Doherty
Arthur Drews
Édouard Dujardin
Charles-François Dupuis
Alvar Ellegård
David Fitzgerald
Brian Flemming
Edward Greenly
Peter Gandy
Marshall Gauvin
Gilbert T. Sadler
Kersey Graves
Edward Greenly
Tom Harpur
Tom Harpur
Arthur Heulhard
Peter Jensen
Edward Johnson
Albert Kalthoff
Shūsui Kōtoku
Sergey Kovalev
Iosif Kryvelev
Alvin Boyd Kuhn
Samuel Lublinski
Harold Leidner
Logan Mitchell
Abraham Dirk Loman
Samuel Lublinski
M. M. Mangasarian
Michael Martin
Gerald Massey
Dennis McKinsey
Myles McSweeney
Andrzej Niemojewski
Michel Onfray
Minas Papageorgiou
Allard Pierson
Robert M. Price
J. M. Robertson
Abram Ranovich
Salomon Reinach
Samuel Maximilian Rieser
Jonathan M. Roberts
J. M. Robertson
Rudolf Steck
Nikolai Rumyantsev
L. Gordon Rylands
William Benjamin Smith
Acharya S
Sarah Elizabeth Titcomb
Homer William Smith
William Benjamin Smith
Robert Taylor
Thomas L. Thompson
Farrell Till
Charles Virolleaud
Constantin François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney
Barbara G. Walker
George Albert Wells
Joseph Wheless
Thomas Whittaker
Robert Wipper
Frank Zindler

--Dbz (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

First article on your list I checked was Dan Barker. He's not on the Christ myth theory proponents category. But that's fine. What I want to know is, why is this article missional? GeeJayK (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ • "List of Christ myth theory proponents".  Wikipedia.

*Dan Barker (born 1949) – American atheist activist.["Debunking the Historical Jesus". Freedom From Religion Foundation.]

  • The topic of this talk-section is "Wikipedia mention of these names" not "why is this article missional?"

--Dbz (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It's as missional as Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ is, which is based on fitting the mission of covering pseudohistory/pseudoscience. It's basically an expanded listicle, so listicle opponentists will have a beef with it. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me an answer, Bongolian. For the record, I'm not a listicle opponentist. My problem is with bad faith. I asked more than ten times why is this article missional and I didn't get an answer. That being said, I'm still not convinced. I might still put this article on AfD tomorrow, I'll think about it. Since most of the names don't have sources I think it should be on the draft space. At least. GeeJayK (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem deleting unsourced names. It would improve. Bongolian (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
The idea that a some kind of wizard came down to Earth, did some magic, died, came back to life and then went to some never-never land to live with his magically immortal father is pretty cranky. Those who believe this stuff are obviously pushing a non-scientific agenda. So identifying people who oppose various elements of this nuttiness would, in principle, be within the missions.
There are different ways one could criticize the article - but I wouldn't say that missionality is one of them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It is because of comments like "some kind of wizard came down to Earth, did some magic, died, came back to life and then went to some never-never land to live with his magically immortal father" that the Jesus myth theory and Christ myth theory articles exist. As both those articles try to hammer home is what is meant by "historical Jesus" is all over the freaking map in a kind of Humpty Dumpty via Alice Through the Looking Glass way.

Let's be blunt - there is a lot of crazy on both sides of the debate.

"[W]e shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." —New Testament scholar Ian Howard Marshall I Believe in the Historical Jesus. sited in Jesus myth theory article.

That in a nutshell is the problem. If you actually read the 19th century early 20th century mythists wrote you will see contray to what is being said they did not throw Jesus the man out with the Gospel Jesus bath water. What they were saying was the Gospel version likely bore little if any relationship to the actual man.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC)Well. Yes. Did "Magic Jesus" exist, did "Some Guy(s)" exist or "Nobody" exist are the relevant questions. And the question of who supports the various permutations of these opinions seems relevant. But it's obvious that the "Magic Jesus" side of the argument is clear nuttiness.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree but as the Jesus myth theory article (which GeeJayK stated "I'll probably nominate it for deletion in the future too" ...despite the fact it has some 384 references) outlines in the Problems with definitions section:
However, as Carrier notes, "Either side of the historicity debate will at time engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as if this refuted the reductive theory (as if that were valid)".
Too many times when apologists talk about a historical Jesus they are actually talking about the Jesus of Bethlehem and too many times Christ mythers are trying to disprove the Jesus of Bethlehem rather than a possible Jesus of Nazareth.
--
As I said before AfD should be the last resort...not the first. Especially when asked to cite the supposed "the Shill gambit part of the article" regarding Jesus myth theory back on 15 March 2021 and here in 5 Aug 2021 no reply on the talk page has appeared. AfD is not some magical 'I don't know how to fix this article let's nuke it from orbit.' hammer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC) @Bob M if that's the definition of the historicity of Jesus then unless you're Schlafly you're also a critic of the historicity of Jesus, or at least a critic of the Gospels as a reliable, literal historical source, which is basically like saying that Virgil or Homer (or even Livy and Herodotus) are flawed sources. Even most Christians will partially agree. Of course our beloved hippie didn't exist at least the way the Bible tells us (he didn't get nailed in a stick and came back). If that's the definition then the article shoud comprise every secular thinker from the last 200 years, just like an eventual Critics of YEC listicle. Wikipedia synthesizes the Christ myth theory as "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity", which is quite different from what we're talking about here. Besides, most of these names are a buch of literal no ones, some of them are so irrelevant that they don't even have a Wikipedia article. How are we going to decide whether a name should be on the list or not? GeeJayK (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Bruce, since you've been acused of being a concern troll and acting in bad faith from other users on the last few weeks I'd avoid using this Chewbacca defense again and engage in the actual discussion. GeeJayK (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I may be missing your point. But if Jesus was not who the bible say he he was - then why should we care? If we all agree he was "just some guy" then - well ... So what?
I agree that that this article could be better - but I thought your main argument was missionality?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Well, if you want my honest opinion I don't think we should care about him at all.
Also, yes, my main argument is missionality (although I mentioned that so much yesterday because Bruce and Dbz remained radio silent about if even though I've asked them 12 times by my account whether the listicle is missional). But in fact my other comment was also about the lack of missionality. Since every secular researcher will agree that no, the Gospels aren't a reliable source of the Judea from 2000 years ago) we can just drop names (most of these names seem irrelevant to me) like we're doing. Bongolian mentioned that it fits the "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement". I'm not convinced it does. We have three or four redundant articles on this subject already. At best it can be a quote mining or be used ad a gish gallop to show that the theory is not fringe like Wikipedia says. GeeJayK (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
But if the other articles are on mission then so it this. As I said - you can make other arguments but I don't see "missionality" as being a problem for this one.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Hum, I wouldn't say so. As I said before, YEC is of course missional, but is having a listicle of YEC critics missional? GeeJayK (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a good counterpart is Lists of creationist scientists. I can see the mission there because we're documenting the crank ideas. Now, in this case we're assuming the Gospels at least aren't a reliable source, so I don't think it's missional. GeeJayK (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course we are assuming the gospels are not a reliable source! In this case the magical claims (virgin birth, walking on water, multiple resurrections etc) are going to be assumed to be untrue unless there is evidence they are true. Now, you can argue that some parts may be true. Jerusalem is mentioned and Jerusalem exists, for example. But we have no way of knowing which parts are real and which are fantasy. So, no the Gospels are obviously not reliable.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
So, if we're assuming that the gospels aren't a reliable source then every single historian from the last few centuries is suited for this list. Which, IMO, makes it useless. Again, I see this listicle as a list of critics of YEC if we're including names like Will Durant (himself a Christian) here. GeeJayK (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If that is your objection to the article then go for the AFD! :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I will. Problem is, I don't like deleting stuff, I prefere doing it by consensus and I want to be convinced that this listicle should not be deleted, but the user that created the page refuses to engage in good faith like you, Bongolian and (at least today) Bruce are doing. GeeJayK (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I am sure you will do what your think is right, but the AFD process is consensus in action. If you think it is worth the wiki's time and you think you can carry it then it's up do you. But starting an AFD and unilaterally deleting an article are clearly not the same thing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I want to point out the only reason I am here on this talk page is because this thing appeared in my alerts. GeeJayK does raise a good question about who should be on the list and for that I honestly do not have a good answer given the what a "historical Jesus" even is varies so much from author to author that it isn't even funny.

I should point out that, in theory at least, "Wikipedia synthesizes" nothing as that is expressly forbidden by its Wikipedia:No original research guideline.

What GeeJayK is quoting is actually from Ehrman, Bart, Did Jesus Exist? (2012), Harper Collins, p. 12. (which is also cited in the Jesus myth theory for the record) and even that definition has issues. A Jesus who took over an existing Chrestian movement or preached a type of Judaism that was turned into Christianity after his death would fit Ehrman's definition of "non historical" Jesus.

Carrier's peer review book On the Historicity of Jesus (and I checked this. As far as UK standards are concerned it is peer reviewed) went even further than Ehrman did:

  1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death
  2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities
  3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshipping him as a living god (or demigod)

Carrier removed things like founding, living in the 1st century CE, and a lot of other stuff with that would fall outside of Ehrman. It still has problems as demonstrated by four examples of "Christ Mythers" (including Dan Barker FWIW) who fall between Carrier's definitions of historical and mythical Jesus.

Perhaps a better question would be how is Jesus historical? Or to be blunt whose definition do we use?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was the very point of Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, Biblical archaeology, Academic history and the Bible, Christ myth theory, Jesus myth theory among other articles that I probably forgot. GeeJayK (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Exactly my point. As those articles demonstrate (especially the Jesus myth theory which I will again remind everyone you wanted also wanted to go AoF on despite it being on topic and having 300+ references) what "historicity of Jesus" even means is all over the place. "Mythist" has been from the get go seemed to be 'version of Jesus an author doesn't agree with' (Frazier and G.A Wells poster children of that nonsense.) Regarding "listicle" the definition is so broad ("a piece of writing or other content presented wholly or partly in the form of a list") that anything with a table of contents would qualify!
As for that "Chewbacca Defense" silliness that comes from a fictional version of Johnnie Cochran in a satire version of the O. J. Simpson murder trial. The real trial was a casebook example of just how the police and prosecution totally FUBERed things - lack of proper chain of evidence, failure to double check evidence presented to the jury and a host of things outlined in Christo Lassiter, The O.J. Simpson Verdict: A Lesson in Black and White, 1 MICH. J. RACE & L. 69 (1996), "Special Issue on Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice" Social Studies of Science Vol. 28, No. 5/6, Oct. - Dec., 1998, and a host of other articles published by people who actually were in or finished Law school. Never mind A Legal Analysis of The Chewbacca Defense (Legal Geeks - also actual lawyers) rips the premise to shreds - no competent Judge would allow that and even if they did the appeals court would likely throw out the ruling and request a retrial. As they say at the end, "In Chef’s case, the copyright violation should have entitled him to a judgment as a matter of law."
Finally regarding the "concern troll" claim. If you had actual read my talk page that is a product of my high functional autism (we aren't sure about the ADHD) so that argument is DOA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The theory is not fringe like Wikipedia says[edit]


┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The topic of this new talk-section is "The theory is not fringe like Wikipedia says" not "lets throw shit and see if sticks". --Dbz (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Keeping on topic "The theory" is a problem because there is no "the" theory. That is what the Christ myth theory and Jesus myth theory articles try to hammer home - the very definitions for "historical Jesus" and its counterpart "mythical Jesus" are a range not the simple on/off switch either side would like. The three satirical 'historical yet also mythical Jesuses' (in archive 15 of the Evidence... article's talk page demonstrate this. Later in that same section we have "Carrier comments that there is about as much off the wall stark raving bonkers stuff about the historical Jesus as there is about the historical Jesus (OHJ pg 1-13)" It doesn't help that the terms "Christ myth theory" and "Jesus myth theory" are not always synonymous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Critics noted on external webpages[edit]

• "The End is Nigh – for Jesus, that is".  Jesus Never Existed.

Critics mentioned – Jesus Never Existed
  1. Hermann Samuel Reimarus
  2. Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
  3. Baron d'Holbach ('Boulanger')
  4. Count Constantine Volney
  5. Edward Evanson
  6. Charles François Dupuis
  7. Thomas Paine
  8. Robert Taylor
  9. Godfrey Higgins
  10. David Friedrich Strauss
  11. Bruno Bauer
  12. Ralph Waldo Emerson
  13. Logan Mitchell
  14. Ferdinand Christian Baur
  15. Charles Bradlaugh
  16. Ernest Renan
  17. Sytze Hoekstra
  18. Robert Ingersoll
  19. Walter Cassels
  20. Kersey Graves
  21. Allard Pierson
  22. Bronson C. Keeler
  23. Abraham Dirk Loman
  24. Thomas William Doane
  25. Samuel Adrianus Naber
  26. Gerald Massey
  27. Edwin Johnson
  28. Rudolf Steck
  29. Franz Hartman
  30. Willem Christiaan van Manen
  31. Joseph McCabe
  32. Albert Schweitzer
  33. Wilhelm Wrede
  34. Albert Kalthoff
  35. George Robert Stowe Mead
  36. Thomas Whittaker
  37. Emilio Bossi/Milesbo
  38. William Benjamin Smith
  39. Gerardus Bolland
  40. Prosper Alfaric
  41. Peter Jensen
  42. Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian
  43. Karl Kautsky
  44. John E. Remsburg
  45. Arthur Drews
  46. John Robertson
  47. Edouard Dujardin
  48. Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga
  49. Alexander Hislop
  50. Edward Carpenter
  51. Rudolf Bultmann
  52. James Frazer
  53. Marshall J. Gauvin
  54. Paul-Louis Couchoud
  55. Georg Brandes
  56. Joseph Wheless
  57. Henri Delafosse
  58. L. Gordon Rylands
  59. John G. Jackson
  60. Alvin Boyd Kuhn
  61. Herbert Cutner
  62. Georges Las Vergnas
  63. Georges Ory
  64. Guy Fau
  65. John Allegro
  66. George Albert Wells
  67. Phyllis Graham
  68. Jean Magne
  69. Samuel Max Rieser
  70. Abelard Reuchlin
  71. kos Vergidis
  72. Karlheinz Deschner
  73. Hermann Detering
  74. Gary Courtney
  75. Michael Kalopoulos
  76. Gerd Lüdemann
  77. Alvar Ellegard,
  78. D. Murdock (aka 'Acharya S')
  79. Earl Doherty
  80. Timothy Freke
  81. Peter Gandy
  82. Harold Liedner
  83. Robert Price
  84. Hal Childs
  85. Michael Hoffman
  86. Dennis MacDonald
  87. Burton Mack
  88. Luigi Cascioli
  89. Israel Finkelstein
  90. Neil Silbermann
  91. Frank R. Zindler
  92. Daniel Unterbrink,
  93. Tom Harpur
  94. Francesco Carotta]
  95. Joseph Atwill
  96. Michel Onfray
  97. Kenneth Humphreys
  98. Jay Raskin
  99. Thomas L. Thompson
  100. Jan Irvin
  101. Andrew Rutajit
  102. Lena Einhorn
  103. Roger Viklund
  104. René Salm
  105. David Fitzgerald
  106. Thomas Brodie
  107. Richard Carrier
  108. Raphael Lataster
  109. Michael Paulkovich
  110. Sid Martin,
  111. Minas Papageorgiou

• "A MYTHICISM TIMELINE".  Mythicist Papers

Critics mentioned – Mythicist Papers

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/timeline-of-jesus-mythicism/

  • (Trad) = Traditionalist. Endorses the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
  • (Gen) = Generalist whose work influenced the wider culture in a skeptical direction.
  • (Skep) = Skeptical of the orthodox position regarding Jesus of Nazareth but not avowedly mythicist nor semi-mythicist.
  • (Semi-Myth) = Semi-mythicist. Endorses the existence of a prophet at the origin of Christianity, but maintains that prophet had little or no resemblance to Jesus of Nazareth.
  • (Myth) = Mythicist. Endorses the non-existence of any founding prophet at the origin of Christianity.
  1. (Skep) BARUCH SPINOZA
  2. (Skep) BARON d’HOLBACH
  3. (Skep) HERMANN SAMUEL REIMARUS
  4. (Semi-Myth) COMPTE DE VOLNEY
  5. (Myth) CHARLES-FRANÇOIS DUPUIS
  6. (Skep) DAVID F. STRAUSS
  7. (Skep) FERDINAND C. BAUR
  8. (Myth) BRUNO BAUER
  9. (Skep) LUDWIG FEUERBACH
  10. (Skep) KARL MARX
  11. (Gen) CHWOLSOHN, DANIIL
  12. (Skep) ERNEST RENAN
  13. (Skep) DANIEL SCHENKEL
  14. (Semi-myth) SYTZE HOEKSTRA
  15. (Myth) ALLARD PIERSON
  16. (Semi-Myth) ABRAHAM DIRK LOMAN
  17. (Myth) E. JOHNSON
  18. (Myth) RUDOLF STECK
  19. (Skep) WILLEM CHRISTIAAN VAN MANEN
  20. (Myth) JOHN M. ROBERTSON
  21. (Skep) ADOLF VON HARNACK
  22. (Skep) W. WREDE
  23. (Skep) ALBERT KALTHOFF
  24. (Gen) DITLEF NIELSEN
  25. (Skep) ALBERT SCHWEITZER
  26. (Myth) WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH
  27. (Skep) ALFRED FIRMIN LOISY
  28. (Myth) CHRISTIAN HEINRICH ARTHUR DREWS
  29. (Myth) G. A. BERGH VAN EYSINGA
  30. (Skep) M. M. MANGASARIAN
  31. (Myth) SALOMON REINACH
  32. (Myth) SAMUEL LUBLINSKI
  33. (Myth) ARTHUR HEULHARD
  34. (Trad) SHIRLEY JACKSON CASE
  35. (Semi-Myth) FREDERICK C. CONYBEARE
  36. (Myth) PAUL-LOUIS COUCHOUD
  37. (Skep) MAURICE GOGUEL
  38. (Skep) JOSEPH TURMEL
  39. (Trad) HENRY J. CADBURY,
  40. (Myth) G. A. BERGH VAN EYSINGA
  41. (Semi-myth) DANIEL MASSÉ
  42. (Myth) PROSPER ALFARIC
  43. (Skep) CHARLES GUIGNEBERT
  44. (Myth) ÉDOUARD DUJARDIN
  45. (Myth) ALVIN BOYD KUHN
  46. (Skep) ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON
  47. (Trad) C. H. DODD
  48. (Semi-Myth) JOHN MARCO ALLEGRO
  49. (Myth) GEORGES ORY
  50. (Trad) J. M. ROBINSON and H. KOESTER
  51. (Trad) RUDOLF BULTMANN
  52. (Skep) THOMAS L. THOMPSON
  53. (Semi-Myth) GEORGE A. WELLS
  54. (Trad) KURT RUDOLPH
  55. (Skep) THEODORE WEEDEN
  56. (Skep) R. JOSEPH HOFFMANN
  57. (Trad) ROBERT FUNK
  58. (Trad) PETER BROWN
  59. (Skep) RANDEL HELMS
  60. (Skep) ROBERT EISENMAN
  61. (Skep) BURTON MACK
  62. (Myth) EARL DOHERTY
  63. (Semi-myth) ALVAR ELLEGARD
  64. (Myth) T. FREKE and P. GANDY
  65. (Skep) GERD LÜDEMANN
  66. (Myth) ROBERT M. PRICE
  67. (Myth) FRANK ZINDLER
  68. (Myth) TOM HARPUR
  69. (Semi-Myth) RENÉ SALM
  70. (Myth) RICHARD CARRIER
  71. (Trad) BART D. EHRMAN
  72. (Myth) THOMAS BRODIE


--Dbz (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC) && 00:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Essay_talk:Critics_of_the_historicity_of_Jesus&oldid=2364516"