RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jesus myth theory

Jesus myth theory | Result: Did the page ever really exist?

Jesus myth theory (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. So, this article (and the article about the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ) have long been controversial. I don't really want to like tread ground already well covered elsewhere on why these articles are problematic, but I will for the sake of this AfD note that these articles are bloated, hard to read, place too much weight on only a few, let's just say, "controversial" sources, and are just unbalanced in favor of a theory that's ultimately fringe. While these have been expounded on at length before, they're not the principal reason I'm making this AfD. They're secondary. The main reason is that I came across this ancient AfD, and a reason cited in a lot of the "keep" votes is that these articles should be retained in order to be improved upon. It's been three years since that AfD, and this article has remained pretty fucking problematic. I think at this point the articles are too bloated to work on as they currently exist, so it makes more sense to just burn the articles we do have and start fresh. Or, move these articles to essayspace, I suppose. Carthage (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Let's just be honest, the best thing about this verbal diarrhea is the image's headline. It gives extremely undue weight on a very fringe theory. Yes, it's possible that experts are wrong and Jesus never existed, but just try to read this mess. It is terribly written as well. And before someone says "improve instead of deleting it, I'd like to say that we don't have any experts on this subject. I would even say that having an article that is possibly misinformation is much worse than having no article at all. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Unsalvageable from top to bottom. A somebody. (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
4. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Fringe theories don't need articles Pastasauce (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

   Well, not articles promoting them. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

6. Needs to be redone better to have positive rather than negative value, as per above. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
7. No reason this should exist. Shouldn't this be closed now? Tavantius (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Along with all of the other criticisms, this is an extremely dry and boring read once you get to the main body of the article. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Most of the article in its extreme fringe form was written by Dbz a Jesus mythicist who wrote over 90% of the article since 2019 and a series of essays [1]. On his user-page there are unreliable links like this. This is a PRO-fringe article that damages RationalWiki. The statement in the lead "Some academics have accepted the Jesus myth theory" is false. The sources for this statement are "Holding, James P. (2008). Shattering the Christ Myth. Xulon Press." J. P. Holding is hardly a reliable source. The other source is Citizendium to a non-existent article [2]. Much of the sourcing is like this, no academic scholarship. The article should be immediately removed. The deeper concern is why Dbz has been let free to promote his christ myth theory shite on this wiki for 6 years without anyone questioning his edits or checking his sources. Off-site Dbz has been posting on the "Internet Infidels" forum and at Reddit for 3 years and he often links to this RationalWiki article when he debates his opponents but nowhere does he admit he actually wrote it. If this is taken further I would support a topic ban for anything related to Christianity for Dbz. He can't be trusted and is using RationalWiki inappropriately to push a pro-Fringe view. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   While I agree that this article should be deleted and has primarily been written by a crank, do you have any evidence that he is using this article to promote his own views outside of rationalwiki? A somebody. (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   He links to it on forums [3] . He has over 400 posts on that forum. A scan on RationalWiki shows that nonsensical articles he has written before like Second-god (Christ) were also deleted [4]. The user has had no warnings from anyone about any of this. I disagree with preserving his essays because he is linking to them on other websites. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

10. @GeeJayK I'm glad you like the image I put on the page and the caption I wrote for it. It was also copied and pasted onto the Jesus page by someone else (in what is probably a highly problematic section). Deleting this article now seems to be the best thing to do. RationalWiki cannot give undue weight to fringe theories that our editors happen to like. Is presenting utter bollocks as if it's the truth damaging to RationalWiki? Of course it bloody is! Spud (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. It might be worth moving to Essayspace. Bongolian (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   Not opposed to this though I voted under Delete. This happened before with a Dbz article; RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Critics of the historicity of Jesus. The article trio are kind of similar, mainly the work of that editor. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

2. I also think moving it to essays would be better than outright deleting it. I find the CMT to have some merit to it. Although I disagree with its characterization as a conspiracy theory. Historicizing mythical figures seems to have been a common practice in the ancient world. Herodotus believing Heracles to be a real, historic figure is one example. But the article itself is dense, goes on a lot of tangents, and to be honest, I haven't read every word of it yet. But maybe we should move it instead? LGMR (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   It is a batshit conspiracy theory. A somebody. (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

   While some people pushing this theory are insane conspiracy theorists, there are also real scholars who take it seriously. IIRC, Richard Carrier originally didn't take it seriously until he got into biblical criticism and realized most biblical scholars are ultra-conservatives who take many things for granted that simply wouldn't be assumed if you were doing any other ancient history. (Not that I endorse Carrier in any way other than as a historian.) LGMR (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   Just because someone is a scholar does not mean their theories automatically become true or that they are not a batshit insane conspiracy theorist. A somebody. (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   Where did I say I thought the theory was true? Or that if a scholar says something it becomes true? Why do you keep repeating the word "batshit"? It shouldn't be controversial to question a cult's depiction of its supposed founder. I personally think the character Jesus is a composite of several different historical and legendary figures, which were written into a single person. What does it really matter if there is a single, verifiable historical Jesus or not, since the religion is false? LGMR (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   Oh I'm talking to a batshit conspiracy theorist, good to know. A somebody. (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   So, do you think the New Testament is historically accurate? LGMR (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   Don't tar everyone with the same brush A somebody, there may be some plausibility to the theory that Christ may have never existed. Just bc most CMTers are batshit conspiracy theorists doesn't mean they all are, heck the same could be said for anti-flatearthers/"globe-earthers" as the flattato's refer to us (while I have met some "Globies" that believe the push of flat earth is A Russian Disinformation Operation to weaken other countries, doesn't mean all globies are batshit insane. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   For the record, I don't consider myself a CMT, and I think there was a Jewish rebel that inspired the first Christians, but as the cult/religion grew, and the return/end kept getting pushed into the future, Christians started incorporating Greek Cynic-like material and Gnosic theology to make the religion we know today. I don't think these ideas are controversial among modern non-fundie scholars. LGMR (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   If Jesus didn't exist riddle me this, why did non-Christian first century sources mention a Jesus? A somebody. (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   You're going to have to be more specific about which sources you're referring to. The "Testimonium Flavianum" of Josephus is an interpolation. No scholar who isn't a fundie thinks it hasn't been tampered with. Tacitus wrote in the early second century, not the first. I'm done. You've been nothing but hostile. Oh, and Oswald killed Kennedy, we landed on the moon, Al-Qaeda did 9/11 and Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I'm not some kind of "batshit conspiracy theorist". LGMR (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

   The John the Baptist parts hadn't been tampered with, and while scholars reject it's current form, they agree at one point it probably mentioned Jesus without referring to him as The Messiah and a bunch of other things. A somebody. (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

3. Move to essayspace. Plutocow (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Move it to essay space. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
5. I would suggest essay space as well.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
6. -Flandres (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Agree with Bob M. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)