Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ/Archive15

This is an archive page, last updated 7 January 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>

, (new)(back)

Post on Jerry Coyne's blog on this topic

Ben Goren guest post. May be useful for stuff and tropes. This comment is particularly interesting in terms of academic bias on the question - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrier's Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt: Should We Still Be Looking for a Historical Jesus? tounched on another interesting aspect: "A superbly qualified scholar will insist some piece of evidence exists, or does not exist, and I am surprised that I have to show them the contrary. And always this phantom evidence (or an assurance of its absence) is in defense of the historicity of Jesus." That the "evidence" for a historical jesus is based on a Bermuda Triangleish repeating of what the previous expert said (without checkin if they were even right) should not surprise us. The whole historical Jesus camp has seemingly become this gigantic echo chamber.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Newer "evidence"

This site] sites "evidence" not found in this article. Do you think we should add said "evidence"?--TemplarJLS (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really as Carrier addresses most of the "evidence" after 120 CE: "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible". Note that Justin Martyr lived from c. 100 – 165 CE ie most if not all of his major writings are after the 120 CE cut off date. In fact, of the list at that site only Clement of Rome and Ignatius qualify. After the 120 c the only writings of any possible use are those of Papias and Hegesippus. After those all writings "are so rife with legend and dogma as to be useless" in showing the historicity of Jesus (Carrier, Richard (2014) On the Historicity of Jesus Sheffield Phoenix Press ISBN 978-1-909697-49-2 pg 306) And for the record Carrier tears Papias and Hegesippus apart so we are left with only the writings c 120 or before.

Carrier's peer reviewed and scholarly published book is the new standard for evaluating evidence for the historical Jesus and ALL evidence must be checked against that standard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Carrier's peer reviewed and scholarly published book is the new standard"??? What???

JRCHReason (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

JRCHReason (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

even by the shitty standards memes go by, that is one shit meme AMassiveGay (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Strawman aside Carrier's "meme" is no different than then of Joseph Campbell's "(i)t is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles." (Campbell, Joseph (2003) The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology Vol. 3 ISBN 978-0-14-019441-8 pg 362) TIme to wake up and smell the reality and for both sides to stop using old and outdate arugments. Carrier's book is also new standard by which all Jesus myth theories will be judges (and most of them are to put it bluntly crap)--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I subscribe to the theory(?) that Jesus at that time was not a particularly popular preacher in Messianic Judaism, with people being more likely to support those such as Simon of Peraea and Judas of Galilee due to their resistance to Roman rule. Jesus would have become more popular to non-Jewish converts, who wouldn't have a cultural history of religious figures leading revolts against occupying forces (thus more peaceful preachings would be more palatable, particularly deeper into Romanized territory).-- Forerunner (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And Carrier addresses this point IN THE ARTICLE:

"It is also problematic to claim Jesus was a nobody. I grant that’s an out. But it comes with consequences. Because if it’s so, you are conceding the Gospels are lying (egregiously…and evidently, successfully) and that Jesus never said or did anything in life that would inspire fanatical worshipers or warrant anyone considering him worth dying for–because nothing Jesus ever said or did in life is ever relevant to the gospel preached anywhere in the authentic letters of Paul…which begs the question how he convinced anyone he was the Messiah and Savior who would soon return on clouds of glory if he never said or did anything anyone thought impressive enough to ever discuss until a lifetime later."

As I have said before the whole "It's too long" comes off as "I'm too lazy to actually read" especially when drivel like this keeps appearing in the talk.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Bruce: Why are you so adamant about Carrier? Doesn't his use of Bayes' Theorem strike you as odd? That theorem deals with likelihood of things you can put definitive numbers on, not things which are matters of speculation. It is almost never used in looking at ancient history; it is used for predicting future outcomes which have tested statistical knowns. This seems like something that can be easily skewed if you are plugging in numbers based on speculation with preconceptions. Arachne1988 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your objection is a hypothetical objection. If you read the book, you'll see he fills in literally all of the details you claim could be left out. Sure they could, but you haven't shown they in fact have been (and, indeed, they weren't) - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope he has improved his arguments since the ones I read in 2012-they left me doubting him quite a bit. His knowledge level sounded way too much like Acharya S-who is just completely wrong. My major problem with the way he argues stuff is that it seems like he had failed to understand the Jewish theology that Christianity was borne out of. I regard Judaism's development and theology as good reason to doubt both Christianity and many forms of the Christ myth theory-not the one that regards Christ as based on actual people like the failed messiah John the Baptist.

Judaism is one reason why I will entertain the possibility that Jesus existed but the sacrifice explanation was a pathetic cover story for an accidental death. The Jewish messiah is not supposed to die and they have never thought that was likely. Their afterlife has always been insignificant and rather debatable so protecting people from hell just sounds ridiculous. Original sin doesn't exist either in Judaism-so why did Jesus need to fix that? The claim that Carrier makes that Jesus' sacrifice was spiritual and in a higher realm seems odd to come from a originally Jewish (Essene) cult. I think Carrier might not have been scrutinizing enough to realize how flawed the reinterpretations Christians made of the Old Testament are. Funny part of the brick bible I was reminded of.Arachne1988 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

translation: "I haven't at all, so I'll lead off with an ad hominem and ramble on with my own uncited opinions" - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious as the claim "Jewish messiah is not supposed to die" is directly refuted by Element 5 on page 73" "Even before Christianity arose, some Jews expected one of their messiahs heralding the end time would actually be killed, rather then be immediately victorious, and this would mare the key point of a timetable guaranteeing the end of the world soon thereafter." Carrier even points to Isaiah 53 and Zech 12.10 as evidence of this. If anyone is going to contest Carrier at least demonstrate you have actually READ his book. --BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad as a historical person

"There are also non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities. (Nigosian, Solomon Alexander (2004). Islam: Its History, Teaching, and Practices. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21627-3. pg 6) These non-Muslim written sources go back to about 636 AD and many of the interesting ones date to within some decades later."

Last time I checked 636 AD is not "150 years" from 632 (the year Muhammad died). This would be contemporary works showing Muhammad existing as an actual historical person. The statement in wikipedia is nearly a word for word copy of page 6 of the referenced work. Check the references before you remove stuff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, I think the section was deleted as per User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/Archive1#Muhammad so I rewrote it accordingly (I hope), let me know what you think. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato's references were to detailed biographies of Muhammad not to references. Also his point about when the Quran was written is in dispute per the wikipedia page on it:

"According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations.[10] Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it.[11]"

10 Donner, Fred, "The historical context" in McAuliffe, J. D. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 31–33.

11 Campo, Juan E. (2009). Encyclopedia of Islam. Facts On File. pp. 570–74. ISBN 0-8160-5454-1.

As a result I have removed direct reference to when the Quran was written and complied and added details on the two earliest non-Muslim references to Muhammad.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's cool, I asked because I wanted my contribution checked and I thought there was something to the issues raised in the earlier edits. Keep up the good work. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Argument for Christianity

I moved this piece of apologetics by ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.25.12.206 / talk / contribs} to Talk:Christian apologetics since it didn't concern the historical evidence for Jesus at all, but only why it's a jolly good thing to believe in Christianity. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and you are right. That piece at best only served to highlight the whole Reductive vs Triumphalist issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It is sad

It is sad how you guys waste so much of your life making up lies about Christianity. (It's sadly ironic how you do exactly what you accuse Christians of, by all coming together to add lies and references to the lies of others to try to make people believe that your secularist myths are true.) ^{— Unsigned, by: 100.32.91.98 / talk} 07:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What "lies"? It is easy to claim someone is lying but but very suspicious that one give no examples of such lies. The nonense Jack Chick and his ilk comes to mind--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This blog ( http://rationalwikibias.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/refuting-rationalwiki-and-their-jesus.html) list the lies. Particularly the crap made up about "Jesus Ben Ananias" sharing the same life as Jesus Christ, Josephus being a forgery, the mention of Christians by Tacitus not mentioning Christians but Orsis worshippers and Richard Carrier as a source for all this nonsense along with the long since refused garbage of "Gerald Massey." --Gaidn (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There is exactly one(!) reference to Massey, and though it's probably one too many, to claim that Massey is an important pillar in the article's arguments is simply nonsense. Also, what's with the anti-Carrier sentiment here, Gaidn? Judging from your other posts it seems that you think that something being written by Carrier is automatically disqualified, because he's an atheist and a Christ mythicist. If that's the gist of it, that would be a stone cold ad hominem.

Similarly, your blog claims about Nazi persecution of Christians is either a red herring or simply mistakes the reason why the Nazi persecuted some Christians, namely that they were not persecuted for being Christians, but for opposing the Nazi regime, which far from all Christians did. Oh, and in a strict sense plenty of Nazis were Christians, as were most Germans then and today. The salient question is the influence of Christianity on Nazi ideology which was minimal. Contrast the "persecution" of Christians, limited to those who actively resisted and curtailing the ability of churches to function as alternative centres of power, with those of Jews, social democrats, communists, gypsies, homosexuals etc. These were all either persecuted for who they were or for their beliefs alone (though in the case of the social democrats and communists, the line is blurry because their beliefs made them highly likely to actively resist the Nazi regime). So, contrary to what Gaidn claims on his blog, the RW article on Nazism doesn' claim that "Nazis were Christian". In fact, the article quite clearly states that "the opposing view that Nazism is essentially based on Christianity is not very credible either, although this is a much more complex issue."

And what is this source about The Nazi Master Plan anyway? It seems to conflate Nazi totalitarianism with specific persecution of Christians. Most of its examples can simply be boiled down to the aforementioned clampdown on any alternative centres of power, so I guess we should write about the Nazi persecution of boy scouts too, right? Because the Nazis also banned the scouting movement to pressure young boys into the Hitlerjugend/Deutsches Jungvolk (depending on age, girls went into the Bund Deutcher Mädel/Jungmädelbund). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, the claim made on Gaidn's blog that RW tries "to downplay the deaths caused by socialism and communism" is also patently absurd, considering such articles as Stalin apologetics, Mao Zedong, Holodomor, Juche and so on and so forth. Again, just as in the claims about RW's conflation of Nazis and Christians, Gaidn fails to cite any actual articles on RW.

This tendency towards sloppy sourcing is equally evident in the "3 claims" section where we simply get a reading list at the end which means that the reader has to guess which objections are from where. This is compounded by the fact that the reading list includes effin' Gary Habermas of Liberty University - see my "usual suspects" list below for why citing GH is doubly problematic for Gaidn who seems to dismiss Carrier out of hand because he's an atheist and mythicist. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It is even worse then you think. Here are the CHRISTIAN works that say the same thing as Massey:

"The Jewish history-writers say that Joshua ben Perachiah was the teacher of Yeshu ha-Notzri [the Nazarene], according to which the latter lived in the day of King Janni [Jannaeus]; the history-writers of the other nations, however, say that he was born in the days of Herod and was hanged in the days of his son Archelaus. This is a great difference, a difference of more than 110 years."--Abraham ben Daud (12th century)

"The Talmud makes Jesus the disciple of Rabbi Jeschua ben Perechiah and has him crucified in 83 BCE , when Alexander crucified so many pharisees The Toleboth Jechu incorporated these long-lived traditions, Epiphanius reports them too." (Beilby, James K.; Paul R. Eddy (2011) The Historical Jesus: Five Views InterVarsity Press pg 80) InterVarsity Press is a Christian publishing company that also publishes university books. In fact, The Historical Jesus: Five Views is under their Spectrum Series which is under their IVP Academic division.

"Perahia's pupil, relying on the support of Epiphanius, who sets the birth of Jesus in the reign of Alexander (Jannaeus) and Alexandra, that is, in the time of Ben Perahia or Ben Tabai." - Efrón, Joshua (1987) Studies on the Hasmonean Period - Brill Academic Pub Page 158

It is interesting how ignorant (on both sides) these arch chair researchers are but why is it the Christian side that seem more prone to shove its foot in its mouth...sometime all the way to the hip?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Popular bad source: Germinius

Alluded to in this Facebook post: "A little story: my father read me a text he had found on the Internet regarding the historicity of Jesus, and in it there were quoted supposed eyewitness accounts of stuff like Jesus's trial and resurrection etc. I was utterly dumbfounded by that, because I know the subject pretty well and I've never heard of such written-down testimonies, not even fake ones. I did some digging and this Russian website: http://rusvera.mrezha.ru/335/7.htm (looks reliable and trustworthy, doesn't it ;] ?) is the one and only original source of the text, which was copy-pasted to a number of other Russian websites. Then it was translated by someone into Polish, and quickly spread among Polish Christian forums as well. Now, the text claims to be a copy of an article written by a Soviet scholar, who quotes alleged writings of Germinius/Germisious (I'm guessing here based on how the name is rendered in Cyrillic) the Greek, the 'biographer of Pontius Pilate'. I cannot find any reference to such a person or his writings anywhere else and as far as I know both are completely made up. /// I know perfectly well that all of this is complete bullshit, but still, the audacity to actually invent Greek chroniclers and eyewitnesses, complete with written accounts, that's pretty hardcore. So, if there's anyone here who knows Russian or has encountered similar forgeries before, I'd be interested hear your thoughts on this. ;]" (Maciej Grabczyk)

This sounds like a ludicrously terrible source, but if it's actually popular in some circles then we should probably go through the trivial debunking required. wp:Germinius of Sirmium isn't noted as a biographer of Pilate and died in 375/376, so may or may not be the fellow the source talks about - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason Carrier with only two exceptions cut off every thing after c120: "the quantity of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity exploded to an immense scope, making the task of sorting truth from fiction effectively impossible (Element 44)" to the point that works after c120 CE "are so rife with legend and dogma as to be useless". The 4th century seems to be a particular bad time for works on Jesus; it is when the infamous Testimonium Flavianum is first referenced, it is when the claim "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs." was made. It is when you have the statement that Jesus was born in the times Alexander Jannaeus (c100 BCE) while also living in the 1st century CE (Epiphanius of Salamis).

The 4th century is so full of off the wall bonkers logic go bye bye stuff that you tend to ask just what the Christians were smoking in that century as it makes Revelation look rational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they were just high on GOD!? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

On a more serious note: The bullshit fiesta of the 4th century might have been linked with the acceptance of Christianity after Constantine. As a recognised religion under the Roman Empire (rather than a superstitio), Christian scholars and clerics had good reasons to burnish their faith's credentials, but already had far too many spurious traditions to pen down, not to mention a motive to fabricate even more. Sounds plausible? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ossuary of James: BoN cites new evidence, I'm less convinced

Rosenfeld,et al, (2014) published in Open Journal of Geology "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary"supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited. Note this is based on geochemical and physical analysis, not paleographic as earlier claims were. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎70.94.24.5 / talk} 18:42, 17 April 2015

I remain sceptical about the authenticity, especially as this journal promises peer review within 2-4 weeks (considering the usual back and forth this doesn't suggest deep scrutiny). If this study was rigorous and considering the subject matter, I'd expect the results to appear in a publication a bit more... prestigious. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right to be skeptical about the authenticity of Open Journal of Geology There is an interesting piece on Scholarly Open Access regarding a list of predatory publishers for 2014. In the comment section the author states that Scientific Research Publishing (the parent publisher of Open Journal of Geology) "is known for accepting and publishing questionable science, and this could hurt the reputation of your work if you publish in one of their journals."

Of course the first alarm bell should be that what is a matter of archeology is going to a journal in geology. As the Sphinx debate alternative explanations to observed "irregularities" that still result in the original conclusions still being valid.

The second alarm bell is the wikipedia entry on Scientific Research Publishing which indicates the publisher has a multitude of problems: copyright violations, padded and inaccurate editorial boards, and accepted a paper created by a random text generator.

The final nail is that there is no clear connection to any academic institution for what is a very young (2007) publisher who is in China. I have found even the scholarly publications out of China (like Ingle's Endodontics) to have example of less then sterling research. "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection..." claims the 2002 edition...despite peer reviewed sources presenting focal infection as a viable theory clear into the 1950s. In fact, works published just a few years later (Carranza's clinical periodontology (2006), and Textbook of Endodontology (2009)) as well as their own 2002 Essentials of oral medicine proved Ingle's Endodontics was spouting nonsense. When your scholarly publisher puts out two books the same year that say the opposite thing...you have a major problem.

Compare that to the Archaeological Institute of America which published two articles on the issues James Ossuary had founded in 1879 and got its Congressional Charter in 1906 or the Israeli Antiquities Authority which as the Israel Department of Antiquities dates all the way back to the founding of Israel in 1948. The Open Journal of Geology journal is clearly a vanity publication and any article it produces is a joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I did wonder about that stuff (I suspected that OJoG was "parajournal", i.e. a place for sloppy research). I can also see that Wikipedia's consensus, for what it's worth, has so far settled on a very terse, bland and hedging reference "A 2014 study supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited."

But the OJoG article s clearly one of those pieces of obscure (pseudo?)scholarship that is (and probably will continue to be) endlessly touted on apologetic webs(h)ites as "PROOF!!1!! For REALZ!!1! Repent, sinner!!1!" ScepticWombat (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the term "parajournal" for these things actually found in the wild? I looked it up and saw (a) an Android app to flight-log paragliding (b) a newsletter for paralegals called Parajournal. I ask because we could do with a term for journals that are well on their way to pseudojournals - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Parajournalism" is a thing. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 13:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

huh, new on me, cheers. Looks like what we now call "journalism". Or what journalists call things that threaten their job. Nothing to do with journals - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I admit to having invented "parajournal" (I have no idea whether others use it) as a description of a sloppy journal, rather than the more deliberate crankery found in pseudojournals, the "advertising journals" that some medical companies have dabbled in, or personal vanity publishing (which may well overlap with pseudojournals). ScepticWombat (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No reason we can't create a word -- it certainly feels like a good description of those journals. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have watched what wikipedia allows as a "reliable source" degrade to the point it is a joke. If you look at the reference you will see the highly questionable Open Journal of Geology being used as a source. That abomination is reliable?!? What are they smoking over there?!? What is freaking next using tabloids?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out in RW's article on William Lane Craig, I think there are several problems with WP's "reliable source" criteria, incl. citing the echo chambers of apologetic publications, but not blogs criticising the likes of Craig. The Wikipedia article on Craig seems to be run by a clique of his fans and effectively amounts to a whitewash. If William Lane Craig was your only source, you could be excused for thinking that Craig was a towering intellect in modern philosophy - not a two-bit apologist working at a couple of fundie schools and dressing his Gish Gallop up in fancy sounding philosophical'esque lingo (not to mention his constant name dropping and notorious quote mining, cherry picking straw manning, and just flat out deceit). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why it is always a good idea to cross check anything wikipedia gives you. The quality control over there has evidently dropped to nil if what amounts to a pseudojournal qualifies as a reliable source. The fact the talk page on James Ossuary does NOT even bring up the question of Open Journal of Geology qualifying as a reliable source (it clearly doesn't) shows that the majority of people over there don't have clue one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I also notice that according to the talk page this (bad) article popped up on RW due to someone having read a reference to it by Ben Witherington III. However, he's one of the usual suspects of (not always too transparently) biblical literalist "New Testament scholars" (aka theologians) so beloved by popular evangelical apologetics. Others of this ilk that should set any slightly sceptical reader's mental alarm bells ringing are Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, and Paul L. Maier (granted, he actually has a history degree, but his claims for the bible are the usual apologetic bunk). And these are just the ones I could name off the top of my head. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Terrible article that is pseudo-historical

I broke this up b/c it was 10k of text wall. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 18:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Yeah I think you guys should re-write this article and the "jesus myth theory" one since most of the claims there aren't based on facts but long since refuted claims made by atheists and Richard Carrier (who seems to be the sole source rather pathetically for most of this article). --Gaidn (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't understand "published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review" very well, do they? Refuted by whom and when? Anthropology of Consciousness by contrast is a peer reviewed journal by a group recognized by the American Anthropology Association and is published by Wiley Online Library and in one of its articles it flat out states "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived".--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Claim 1: "The Jesus of The Bible is based on Jesus ben Ananias"

"it can be shown there is a strong correlation between the Jesus of Mark and the actions of a would be messiah named Jesus ben Ananias (66-70 CE) written about in Josephus' Jewish Wars (c. 75) [68] meaning that Mark (and therefore Matthew, Luke, and John) could be in reality a Robin Hood like stories with Jesus ben Ananias being made to fit Paul's earlier writings vis a shift in time and name."

What we know of Jesus Ben Ananias comes from one source: Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of the historian Flavius Josephus' The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem. In it, Josephus writes this:

"But a further portent was even more alarming. Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity, there came to the feast at which it is the custom of all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant, who suddenly began to cry out, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people." Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on his lips. Some of the leading citizens, incensed at these ill-omened words, arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But he, without a word on his own behalf or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the magistrates, supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man was under some supernatural impulse, brought him before the Roman governor; there, although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither sued for mercy nor shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his ejaculation, responded to each stroke with "Woe to Jerusalem!" When Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he uttered these cries, he answered him never a word, but unceasingly reiterated his dirge over the city, until Albinus pronounced him a maniac and let him go. During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but daily, like a prayer that he had conned, repeated his lament, "Woe to Jerusalem!" He neither cursed any of those who beat him from day to day, nor blessed those who offered him food: to all men that melancholy presage was his one reply. His cries were loudest at the festivals. So for seven years and five months he continued his wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until in the siege, having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, "Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the temple," as he added a last word, "and woe to me also," a stone hurled from the ballista struck and killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still upon his lips he passed away."

This would have occurred in 66 AD (when the Jewish-Roman war begun), his death was seven years later in 74 AD and his death was by a ballista that struck him accidentally. The description here doesn't describe him as having any followers, performing any miracles or indeed, sharing any similarity with the Jesus of The Bible apart from having the same name (which was a common name back then). Even the time he existed in is decades away from when the events of the gospels took place so we can already rule Jesus Ben Ananias out of being any sort of inspiration for Christ.

Jesus ben Ananias is only mentioned by one historian too (Josephus) so considering the Christ mythist's stance that "if there's only one or few sources mentioning someone, then it's likely they didn't exist" it's humorous to see them changing the rules when it suits them here. If they accept the existence of Jesus ben Ananias from one historian, then by the same logic they should also accept the existence of Christ considering he's mentioned by at least several 1st century historians.

They later say this of Christ "all Non-Biblical evidence is from non contemporaries and therefore at best might be simply the repeating of urban myth rather than history" but apparently, non contemporaries and their accounts do count as historical evidence when it concerns people other than Christ? By their terrible reasoning of Christ, we can reject the existence of all the historical figures they invoke to refute the historical existence of Christ since most of the figures they bring up weren't recorded by contemporaries. Nonetheless, their reasoning here is flawed. Much of history is recorded by non contemporaries, if we go by the logic of the "rational" wiki then one can argue that many historical figures never existed but of course this would be wrong and all reputable historians would reject this. --Gaidn (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't read very well does he? "Even assuming the passage is totally genuine, due to two fires it is unlikely Tacitus had much in the way of official documents to work with and equally unlikely that he would sift through what he did have to find the record of an obscure crucifixion; so likely Tacitus was repeating an urban myth whose source was likely the Christians themselves."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Eh, Bruce, are you sure this Tacitus reference is in the right section, because Gaidn doesn't mention Tacitus here.

As for Gaidn't claims:

1. Which "1st century historians" mentions Jesus? I can name exactly two: The highly problematic references in Josephus and Tacitus (sort of: His work is from the early 2nd century and as Bruce pointed out, using Occam's Razor it's far more likely that the reference to Christ is repeating what Christians themselves were claiming). So "several" in this case means 2, one which is of dubious provenance and one who is likely repeating what Christians believe.
2. The problem isn't whether stuff was recorded by non-contemporaries, but whether we can get a good guess as to where the one recording the stuff had some reliable contemporary sources. It also ignores that in other cases we can rely on physical evidence, such as coinage, archaeological finds etc. and not just two problematic sources. My guess is that Gaidn is running the old "Jesus & Alex"-claim or something like it in which Jesus is contrasted with historical characters such as Alexander the Great, but while our extant sources for Alex aren't from contemporaries, we can see that their sources were in large parts based on contemporary records. It's this ability to track the origins of such claims and whether they've been changed along the way that is the crux, not whether our surviving records were actually penned by contemporaries. Note that the quoted sentence doesn't claim that the evidence sucks because it was recorded by non-contemporaries, but that it (correctly) highlights that it's difficult to discern the degree of independence in even such relatively early (i.e. written ca. 116 AD, which would be a generation or two after Jesus) sources such as Tacitus.
3. Gaidn seems to be of the "if it doesn't match 100% it can't have been a template"-school of historical analysis. This is a claim that I've also heard from apologists such as William Lane Craig who used a very similar argument to dismiss the relevance of dying and rising gods and other such possible inspirations for the beliefs of what became early Christianity because they don't line up 100% with the Jesus narrative. However, as seen in such phenomena as syncratism, it's perfectly possible to assimilate a series of religious beliefs and myths and weave them into a new grand narrative. Thus, the Jesus ben Ananias story is not presented as the only possible source for Jesus Christ, but as the one source which pertains to the question of a historical core in the Jesus narrative. (PS. I'm not convinced by this myself, but at least don't try to mess up what the argument actually is)
4. The claim that because Jesus ben Ananias was only mentioned by one source, therefore he must also be mythical is simply a misunderstanding of how source criticism works. There is nothing to make us suspect that the ben Ananias story is an interpolation - unlike the Jesus (Christ) references. Sure it's better to have multiple sources, but a single good source is still likely to be more persuasive than a handful of bad ones. This attitude about one source sounds like the apologists' tendency to "count sources" to try to inflate the amount of evidence for Jesus, but I might be reading something into Gaidn's text here.
5. In the ben Ananias section, Gaidn also makes one of the rather typical mistakes, or at least problematic unexamined assumptions, namely to assume that the Christian traditions which put Jesus' life somewhere around Year 0 to ca. 33 AD are essentially correct and based on historical facts. We don't know this, and indeed there were early Christians who placed Jesus in a different era based on an emphasis on the few hints as to the historical time frame presented in the NT (e.g. the different nativities and the reference in John 8:57 about Jesus not yet being 50 years old). To assert that the ben Ananias couldn't have been an inspiration for the Christ figure, because the ben Ananias reference in Josephus is set subsequent to the Jesus narrative in the NT is simply missing the point and based on the silent assumption that the Christian traditions which have emerged as a sort of compromise between the various chronologies in the NT are correct. But since the core issue at stake is that we can't simply trust the NT or the Christian traditions inspired by/based on the NT, this assumption is rather dubious, to say the least.

So, rather than adding fuel to the part of my reasoning which rejects the Christ myth theory, I see Gaidn's objections as illustrating the weakness of at least some of the criticism of the myth theory. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On point 5 the "Jesus of when?" section fo the article clearly states "One of the curious aspects of Jesus is that not all sects of Christianity put his ministry and crucifixion in the 29-36 CE time period. Some sects argued that Jesus' ministry and crucifixion was in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103 BCE to 76 BCE) while others argued it was in the time of Claudius Caesar (i.e. after 41 CE).One of the curious aspects of Jesus is that not all sects of Christianity put his ministry and crucifixion in the 29-36 CE time period. Some sects argued that Jesus' ministry and crucifixion was in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103 BCE to 76 BCE) while others argued it was in the time of Claudius Caesar (i.e. after 41 CE)." The gyrations to avoid these facts would be funny if they weren't so pathetic...and annoying--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Claim 2: "Because the account of Josephus has been tampered with, it's likely that the whole thing is a fake"

"It can be shown that the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus has been tampered with and given Josephus was supposedly physically in Rome from 64 to 66 CE to petition emperor Nero for the release of some Jewish priest that Gessius Florus sent there in chains.[69] and make no mention of the movement in Rome it is likely the whole thing is a fake."

This is wrong for so many reasons. Firstly, only ONE passage was shown to be tampered with. "Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate" is the passage was apparently tampered with in some way, many scholars believe it was tampered with only to add in that Jesus was the messiah. However, the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is not questioned and shows no evidence of being tampered with. This in itself shows Josephus mentioned Jesus by his own hand since he mentions James as "the brother of Jesus" (whether as a fraternal brother or sibling is up for debate but that's irrelevant here) acknowledging the existence of both.

Josephus is relevant because he was a 1st century historian. In his time, many people from the time of Jesus would still have been alive to affirm whether Jesus was a real person and whether they had met him. Josephus would have been going on reliable sources at the time and he references Jesus as a real person. Josephus also references the imprisonment of John the Baptist and his subsequent death, which agrees with the gospel accounts validating the gospels here. Already we have a picture emerging of a consistent history contrary to the views of the "rational" wiki and the Christ mythists. --Gaidn (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Josephus is frankly a crap source. The two short references to Jesus are extremely dubious and the problem with the "untampered" passage (the one (supposedly) about Jesus' brother James) only seems that way because the other passage is assumed to be genuine. If the Testimonium Flavianum is either an insertion then the James bit is almost certainly an interpolation as well, because it would be nonsensical without the TF. The strongest argument against the TF is the lack of explanation of the use of the word Christ which would have been incomprehensible to Josephus' gentile audience and the missing explanation is also very much out of style with the rest of Josephus' work. And then there's the problem that the TF only seems to show up around the time of Eusebius who is also suspected of being its author, whereas the older Origen cited Josephus in his disputes with non-Christians, but conspicuously failed to mention the clincher that the TF supposedly provided, suggesting that in Origen's day, nothing like our current TF had yet been inserted. And then there's of course the, unfortunately now lost, work of Josephus' contemporary and opponent Justus of Tiberias, which covered the time of Jesus, but, according to the later Byzantine Patriarch, Photios I, remarked that it must be because of Justus' Jewishness that he failed to mention Jesus at all...

Those "many scholars" who have been trying to exercise damage control on the TF by only dropping the messiah bit are, of course, hardly less biased than Carrier is accused of being, as they generally belong to the theological field of "New Testament scholarship", rather than being historians. Partly is seems to stem from a desperate need not to write off practically the only remotely useful source for Jesus outside the NT.

Now, personally, I don't find the Christ myth theory entirely persuasive, but that's more because we know of so many other preachers, rebels and holy men that, once you strip away the obvious supernatural embellishments from the NT, sound very much like Jesus. My problem with the myth theory is simply that it appears overly complex to me: Why would anyone bother to make up an entirely fictitious Christ figure, when there were plenty of preachers who could be embellished into the "NT superman"? What the myth theory does, however, is give some interesting suggestions as to how and from where these embellishments were introduced, simply because the myth theory is not obsessed with finding some "historical core" which, though it may exist, is effectively invisible to us, since we can't distinguish from it any but the most blatant supernatural embellishments. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well to be fair what has been called "Christ myth theory" is all over the map. For Remsburg it was the story of Jesus in the NT, a definition the 1982 and 1995 editions of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J which is light years away from Jesus as a man didn't exist at all. It certainly doesn't help that people who do accept a flesh and blood Jesus behind the Gospels be they Frazer or Post-Jesus Myth Wells are called "Christ myth theorists". Then you have John M. Robertson's 1900 definition of "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that Jesus existed as an actual human being]. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" which depending on how you read it could be considered mainstream today.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My own homegrown definition of Christ myth theory is limited to those scenarios in which there was no single historical core in the Jesus narrative, which might, in theory, be traced back to the life and actions of a single individual. Hence, Carrier is a Christ mythicist because his scenario is a patchwork of myths without a single inspirational founder at its core. By contrast, a minimalist interpretation (such as my own) which acknowledges that some kind of historical figure likely inspired the "NT superman", even though this historical core is effectively invisible to us, is not a Christ myth theory per se, because it doesn't claim that the Jesus figure was invented out of whole cloth, only that some sort of Jesus dude was embellished into the "NT superman". A possibly more accurate term would be "Jesus myth theory", since to deny the historicity of the NT Christ figure (the aforementioned "NT superman") doesn't require anything beyond standard historical reasoning. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As page on "Jesus myth theory" shows even that is all over the map. John M. Robertson one of the old school Christ mythicists was "prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story." Paul give us no details and it isn't until the 130s we actually get what can be considered quotes from the Gospels so it is possible that any actual records of a historical preacher in the 28-36 period were lost and the writer used elements from other would be messiahs to fill in the gaps. Even stripped of the "NT superman" elements there were so many non historical elements that it is clear the writer(s) is trying to shoehore elements to agree with parts of Paul's writings.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not positing that Christ myth theory is impossible or even particularly implausible, simply that I think it's overly complex, given that we have plenty of records of similar wandering preachers, so that it would have been easier to boost one of them than to go around inventing one out of whole cloth. Now, given my stance that any historical core is effectively unknowable to us (bar the discovery of some new evidence), I'm not far from the mythicists when it comes to the view on the status of the NT accounts (i.e. for all intents and purposes they're useless as material from which to distil a historical Jesus), which is why I'd probably be lumped in with the mythicists depending on the definition of the latter. Your Robertson quote would probably put him down as a Christ/Jesus mythicist in my book too, because once you go from a single historical Jesus to "more than one", you're into a patchwork man scenario similar to Carrier's. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually as outlined in the insanely long The Historical Jesus thread over at the International Skeptics Forum the Christ myth theory is NOT "overly complex". George Walsh's overly simplistic 1998, "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory" has problems:

1) Say Paul (or someone before Paul) imagined a mythical celestial god Jesus c 31 CE (earliest date I have seen for his conversion) and starts preaching.

2) Somebody in Judea inspired by Paul takes up the name "Jesus" sometime between 32-36 and tries to take what Paul is preaching in his own direction and is either killed by the local officials for his troubles or looses support and fades into obscurity. In any case his particular variant disappears with him.

3) A splinter sect takes Paul's writings and the vague reports of his inspired preacher and uses them to write the Gospels putting their beliefs in his mouth. They then gloss over any inconsistencies with a lot of doubletalk.

Because the mythical celestial god Jesus myth was first per Walsh even though we have an actual flesh and blood Jesus in the right time and place we still have a "Christ-myth theory" be definition! This is why Carrier goes beyond "the basic thesis of every competent mythologist, then and now, has always been that Jesus was originally a god just like any other god (properly speaking, a demigod in pagan terms; an archangel in Jewish terms; in either sense, a deity), who was later historicized, just as many other gods where..." and set forth four additional criteria for his definition of the Christ Myth theory.

I should point out the "inventing one out of whole cloth" concept is not true. There were many Jews looking not only through their holy book but other sacred writes (some of which are lost to us) for indicators as to the coming messiah so that someone could have a vision and other use bit and pieces from other would be messiahs to create essentially a fictious biography for the visionary persona. Take a look at the Jesus Frum; John Christ section of the Jesus Myth article for a about as simple as is possible real world example of how the .Christ Myth theory could be valid.

Also wee need to remember the Christ Myth theory is NOT the same as an Ahistorical Jesus. Robin Hood and King Arthur as we now have them are ahistorical; the single historical core (if there every really was one) has been for all practical case been obliterated and we can at best take best stab at what that core was.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bruce, your scenario is still more complex than some unknown preacher inspired a Jewish sect, which then had a schism between what I'll just call the Pauline and Petrine traditions (one targeting mainly gentiles, the other Jews) and these two different branches (and any subvariations) then wrote and rewrote accounts of this "misunderstood messiah" to suit their various theologies. This is a far simpler model than the one which have Paul sitting down and constructing a a patchwork Jesus or whenever and whoever the various mythicist scenarios envision it. Yes, the John Frum cult is a good counter example, but we still have Paul referencing a pre-existing Jesus cult in Jerusalem (the one he's bickering with about whether to keep Jewish customs), so the original "Jesus Frum" must have been cobbled together in Jerusalem. Considering the long list of various preachers I've already mentioned, it's hardly less plausible that one like them was embellished (again, there were plenty to choose from) than that someone sat down and wove together a narrative about a fictitious person based on a vision. If anything, the "vision thing" would be more likely to have elevated the guy with the mental hotline to YHWH over "Jesus Frum". As I wrote in the beginning of my last post: I don't find Christ myth theory either impossible or implausible, just less likely than the unknown preacher scenario, because where John Frum is an interesting counter example, cults started by various charismatic preachers are far more prevalent. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And we have a 1949 letter that clearly states the "origin of the [John Frum] movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago" which is akin to Paul referencing a pre-existing Jesus cult in Jerusalem but that doesn't mean that "Jesus Frum" must have been cobbled together in Jerusalem that just happens to be where the movement hit critical mass. The Malaysian Cargo cults provide another problem in that some simply latched n to the names of people they heard were important but in reality had nothing to do with founding them (as with the Rusefel (Roosevelt) and Johnson Cargo Cults) and the particular charismatic preacher responsible for this revelation has been lost to history.

As Carrier points out the unknown preacher scenario has its own set of problems chief of which is how do you get from would be Messiah and Savior who during his ministry was so ineffective that no contemporary outside the cult notices him (or if they did the particular sub cult that becomes top dog in the 4th century doesn't seem fit to try and preserve those records) and yet just 20 to 30 years later there are groups of followers some guy previously called Saul is writing to? Also remember when Mark is thought to have been written: some time after 70 CE. Anyone Jewish who could have seen Jesus was either dead or sold into slavery so exactly where was Mark getting his details from? Finally a charismatic preacher by itself isn't enough for a cult to survive...there has to be someone to take over when that charismatic preacher is gone. Christianity can't seem to make up it mind if that is Peter or Paul or perhaps James. And none of these guys seem to have been any more notable then Jesus because non believer history is mute on them too (or 4th century Christians were really poor at preserving those records too) The closest historical person I can think of like this is Confucius whose sayings would effectively sit for nearly two and half centuries in what amounted in a historical banality.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think your analogy between Paul and the 1949 letter holds up, because Paul is clearly in dispute with the Jerusalem branch who uses its seniority as a club to try to browbeat Paul to drop his (heretical) notions about skipping Jewish practices. Paul himself seems to acknowledge the seniority, but paints it as irrelevant due to his hotline to YWHWH and Jesus (revelation trumps tradition). One good guess about why Paul is relatively uninterested in the Jesus figure as a concrete historical person is to view it in the light of the Jewish/Gentile struggle: Any historical preacher would likely have been far closer to the the Jewish branch, hence it would hardly suit Paul's arguments and theology to focus on the historical character. Instead, Paul keeps flogging his revelations and given that the Christianity that developed was essentially Pauline, that's the story we get (the exception is arguably the Gospel of Matthew which is extremely Jewish and which may have been written as a counter to the far more Pauline Mark with its disparaging portrayals of Jesus' disciples and family who don't really get Jesus and his mission).

As for the lack of sources; how much would we have known about Joseph Smith if he had lived in early 1st century Judea? How about John the Baptist and the Mandaeans? There it's also unclear whether the Mandaeans actually can be traced back to John the Baptist and how far we can trust the John the Baptist references. You might actually have already answered your own question about the unclear succession: The division between the Jewish and Gentile branches and the disruption caused by the Jewish-Roman War and the Siege of Jerusalem (which may well have further helped the Gentile branch which would have been less directly affected) were hardly conducive to either orderly successions or good record keeping. The Jesus cult was just one among many, so why would anyone have taken special interest in it? How much do we today focus on obscure cults? When you then add the complicating factors involved in the unfortunately large losses of source material of all kinds (though with a pro-Christian preservation bias due clerics and monasteries), I wouldn't make too much of the scarcity of material. After all, we don't have much on the druids either, despite their religion spanning the wide Celtic world and being harshly suppressed by Rome. And of course I'm not arguing that Mark can or should be read as an actual historical account; we can't know how much, if any, of his account is historically accurate, and Mark's gospel is a thoroughly theological document anyway.

My point is that mythicism seems far stronger when it is contrasted with "maximalist" interpretations of the NT, than when it faces minimalism. The simple answer is that we don't know, and given the evidence can't know whether the unknown preacher or myth scenario are correct, however, we can state, with confidence, that a maximalist interpretation doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Carrier himself admits the 'Jesus was a nobody' position is an out but then you get a Jesus who is no more "historical" then Robin Hood or King Arthur; you get a real life Swastika Night (1937) situation where the actual person had been so buried by mythology that next to nothing remains. Another issue is Paul may have been coopting the remains of previous messiah cults and convincing them that Jesus rather then their founder was the real deal. That would go a long way to explain the wild diversity. One of the points raised over at the aforementioned The Historical Jesus thread is a collection of "historical" but nobody Jesuses to illustrate just what the problem with a minimal Jesus is:

1) In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

2) Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles whose teachings are time shifted so he is before Paul. (John Robertson actually came up with a variant of this in 1900 with this Jesus being inspired by Paul's writings rather then teachings)

3) You could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of Jewish wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50.

As the article points out you have to take some of the Gospels story as true otherwise you have no clue as to where to search. But even at its most basic level that story has problems. Given how Pontius Pilate reacted to potential problems how do you get a movement large enough for him to take notice but not go "Rome Crush!" as he did with the Samaritan prophet of c 36 CE and not one non believer record of it surviving?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm not arguing in defence of anything like an NT Christ, I've always found Carrier's "cost" to be a non-issue. I'm not out to "prove" the historicity of Jesus because that also seems essentially irrelevant; any sort of historical Jesus would, in any case, bear very little resemblance to the "NT superman" and since I don't believe in the latter I don't see the big problem. This is why I wrote that Carrier's argument is much stronger if the alternative is (a variant of) "maximalism", rather than some form of minimalism and especially one that doesn't seek to "rescue" some historical core for apologetic purposes. And yes, choosing which bits of the gospels to trust is a somewhat arbitrary choice of any historian (okay, we can sift away the clearly fantastic elements, but this is a very rough filter), but so is the decision to trust absolutely none of it. Carrier stands on no firmer ground than the minimalist in that respect. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

True, but for Carrier and Price the minimalist view from their point is so broad is that they are willing to accept a historical Jesus before the time of Pilate. But you get into the realm of Robin Hood and King Arthur there with the "true" historical core effectively being a game of Pick Who You Think It Is by scholars.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and I don't think that being honest about this is a big problem, nor that it automatically lends credence to the Christ myth theory. We can't always settle these historical questions conclusively, which is both a frustrating and exciting aspect of being a historian.

The problem only comes if this inconclusiveness is taken to mean that Christ myth theory is completely bonkers and should be rejected out of hand. I think that the venomous reaction against Carrier from some "NT scholars" was more telling of the problematic nature of the field, than of the problems with Christ myth theory. What I would consider the normal and proper reaction would be to weigh the pros and cons and pick at weaknesses while acknowledging strengths in the argument. Instead, at least some NT scholars reacted with what seemed more like a gut reflex that such ideas shouldn't even be considered.

Where I think Carrier is a bit too enamoured of himself and his pet methods is his enthusiasm about Bayesian calculations, which I don't really see the point of in this context. They simply appear to present the judgement of the historian in the form of a mathematical equation, but since the elements of that equation are still based on the historian's personal (if professional) evaluation of the evidence, I really don't think that presenting it as an equation adds anything to the argument. Still, I do think Carrier's myth theory has done an excellent job in pinpointing likely sources of influence on early Christianity, even if I'm not (yet at least) totally convinced by his final conclusion about a mythical Jesus. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As the Jesus myth article shows there is NO "the" Christ myth theory any more then there is "the" historical Jesus idea. Both are all over the flipping map.

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).

Since you referenced Ehrman I should point out his definition of Christ Myth theory includes a historical Jesus who "had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" which is light years from Carrier's five criteria regarding what Carrier sees as Christ Myth theory. So Ehrman is talking about a Christ myth theory that is not he same as Carrier's! In fact, Ehrman's criteria would fit into that "the gray area between historical and mythical" the Jesus Myth article touches on: neither historical nor Christ myth as Carrier defines them but rather into what Carrier in a hand out called ahistorial ie a THRID CATEGORY that is NOT part of either the historical Jesus nor Christ myth realms Carrier sets forth.

That is what people don't seem to grasp. Sure Carrier is primary focused in proving the "Jesus was originally a god" part of the Christ Myth theory but even if that fails you still have that AHISTORICAL Theory waiting in the wings. The realm King Arthur, Robin Hood, Ned Ludd and even John Henry belong to.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Claim 3: "The reference of Jesus and Christ in Tacitus refers to Chrestians who might have been followers of Osiris"

"it has been proven via ultraviolet light that in our oldest copy of Tacitus he originally wrote about Chrestians which may have been followers of the pagan god Osiris or followers of another would be messiah named Chresto. Also there are strong indications that the reference to Christ in Tacitus is an interpolation."

This has no reliable source. There is no reputable academic references saying that Osiris had followers called "Chrestians" and further more, The Sinaiticus (the oldest new testament written in Greek) shows "Christians" written as "Chrestians" so going by this and other early recordings which had this spelling for Christians, we can say that this was one of the original spellings for Christian. So its use by Tacitus clearly does refer to Christians just as "Chrestos" refers to "Christos" Χριστός (the greek spelling of Christ). The name of "chrestos" derives from the greek word of "chriso" which in itself means "to annoit" and "Christos" meant "the anointed one" so again, contrary to the "rational" wiki, the mention of "Chrestos" here by Tacitus likely was a reference to Jesus.

The claim that it all was an "interpolation" is not supported. "Rational" wiki here cites Richard Carrier, a well known Jesus mythist and atheist whose "evidences" are based upon bad scholarship and his citations come from equally dishonest Jesus mythists who made up lies to support themselves or gained their "evidences" from non-existent records. Jesus mythists mainly go upon the now fraudulent and debunked claims made by Gerald Massey, who was a 19th century self-published writer who made up a bunch of bull about Horus sharing similar characteristics to Jesus (something rejected by all educated Egyptologists who know the stories of Horus, Osiris and every other Egyptian god atheists try to compare Jesus to, are totally different. One invention by the atheists here was that Horus was baptised by someone named "anup the baptizer" but apart from atheist sites on the internet, there is not a single reference of this event or "anup" in Egyptology or any academic site so by lack of evidences, we can rule these comparisons out). --Gaidn (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the "Chrestus, Christ, Chrestians, and Christians" section which goes into this issue in detail. Also Carrier's claims have been published in peer reviewed academically recognized publishers: Journal of Early Christian Studies and Sheffield Phoenix Press--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias

I know none of this will be noted in the article though (what with this wiki being worst than Conservapedia with its liberal atheist bias) so I set up this blog: http://rationalwikibias.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/refuting-rationalwiki-and-their-jesus.html hopefully any specifically searching the internet for rationalwiki's views on Jesus will see it before reading the general bullshit of this article and its desperate attempt to "debunk" Jesus. --Gaidn (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

this is a wiki. The pages represent the views of the collective authors of each page. If you add sourced material then it should stay, unless someone refutes it on the talk page and argues for its removal. There is room for both sides in some categories, in others the leading theories are likely to rule. Feel free to present your points and supporting material. Hamster (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)ScepticWombat (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"The pages represent the views of the collective authors of each page." That's wishful thinking. This article is overwhelmingly the work of one single-purpose editor. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

And yet you have nothing to refute the points presented. Also some of the comments clearly show he was using an older version of this article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh if you want a gander on just how irrational the HJ side can get look at the disqus comments by skwills to the Richard Carrier’s mythicism in the Reason Advocates blog. According to this person Sheffield Phoenix Press is not an academic press because it has a .com domain...despite the fact Oxford University press also has a .com domain and Cambridge University Press has a .org domain. And his other arguments are just as off the wall goofy...provided you can actually read them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

, Bruce (and by that I mean skwills over at Patheos) and take care not to bait them to come over here - that spelling is effin' painful to slog through. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I know. Several of the other people have commented that skwills's spelling is horrid. Skwills claims that that they are dyslexic but there are times when their comments are letter perfect so who knows. Oh, I don't know who said it but there was someone who said that the idea that really dumb comment have some hyper intelligent troll behind them is wrong; the sad thing is there are people THAT dumb.--(talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh the claim that because Sheffield Phoenix Press is independent it is not a University Press is another hoot as demonstrated by University of California Press and Princeton University Press--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)