User talk:Bill the Cat 7/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Battle of Gettysburg: Controversies

I'm considering putting together a list of all of the controversies about the Battle of Gettysburg. I've come up with the following outline. If you have the time and inclination, can you please let me know if I'm missing a controversy? I would also appreciate ANY input. Thanks.

I. Mission of Heth: Shoes, or Something Else?

II. Why Did Longstreet Fail to Launch an Early 7/2/1863 Attack?

III. Was Sickles Where He Was Supposed to Be & Did It Make Any Difference?

IV. Did Ewell Err In Not taking Cemetery/Culps Hills?

V. Was Picket’s Charge Supported As Lee Intended?

VI. Who Ordered the Charge of the 20th Maine Regiment: Melcher or Chamberlin?

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting for my reply. I do not think it is a good idea to have a separate article about controversies. At one time I had a section about controversies involving Pickett's Charge, but during a formal review people made me take it out and incorporate the controversial aspects into the main threads of the article. (There are a number of them in there and I suggest you take a look to see how they are handled.) Separating them out gives them the equivalent status of Trivia sections, which are also denigrated in Wikipedia articles.

If you decide that some of these are worth mentioning in the articles, I would suggest a few guidelines to govern your approach: (1) The Battle of Gettysburg article is actually an overview article and there are numerous sub articles that go into the details. Very few of these controversies would warrant space the overview article. (2) Some of the controversies, Sickles or Longstreet for example, which involve the decisions of individuals, would be more appropriate for expansion in the biography articles of those individuals (and are probably in there already). (3) We generally do not spend much effort considering the "what-if" questions of history because that is not encyclopedic. If notable people raising those questions caused substantive historical consequences, such as actions taken by the proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, they are worthy of examination, but as mere exercises in curiosity or "attempting to set the record straight," they would not be. (4) All discussions about these topics need to be in the context of opinions expressed by secondary sources (professional historians writing in books, magazines, or journals), not original research in which the Wikipedia editor attempts to determine an appropriate judgment on the controversy. Hope that helps. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield results

Hi Hal:

Is there a consensus on how the results of each battle is described? It seems there a several ACW articles on wiki that don't seem to follow any rules. If not, then I propose the following:

I. Simple Results

a. Union victory

b. Union decisive victory

c. Confederate victory

d. Confederate decisive victory

II. Mixed Results

a. Tactical Union victory; Confederate strategic victory

b. Tactical Confederate victory; Union strategic victory

c. Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory

d. Tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory

Anyway, what do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an argument that I have with people quite frequently. I almost always limit myself to Union victory, Confederate victory, and Inconclusive. The alternative forms are used very infrequently. One specific deviation from this is Antietam because of its unique stature with the ramifications of the Emancipation Proclamation. My thinking on the subject is encapsulated in User:Hlj/Why#Adjectives. I was recently beaten down by a very persistent user and there are now two articles that use the term decisive victory in the infobox, although I insisted on explanatory footnotes. (To be clear, my zeal in regulating this terminology applies only to that box, not the more free-form Aftermath sections at the end of articles, where there is ample room to explain what is meant and give alternative interpretations if required.) However, I will continue in my wily ways to try to prevent this from proliferating because I think it does a disservice to readers. Incidentally, given the most commonly accepted definition of decisive victory, there were no such victories on the Confederate side because they lost the war. If you happen to disagree with that premise, it demonstrates that there is no clear consensus on the meaning of decisive victory, which reinforces my argument that we should not use the term without ample explanation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Adjectives

Hello Hal:

I was reading the section on the use of adjectives in your article "Why". Although you make some good points, I think the rational conclusion would be to limit ALL battles of the ACW to either "Union Victory" or "Confederate Victory". After all, you said that...

It is best for all concerned that all of these adjectives be omitted and virtually none of the ACW articles use them. In almost all cases, historians do agree on which side achieved a victory of some sort, so limiting it to just "victory" meets everyone's basic requirements without injecting POV concerns.

But then you say:

There is one notable exception that I am aware of that I believe is justified. The Battle of Antietam was indecisive on a tactical level, but it is considered a strategic victory for the Union and the battle box indicates as such. (Bold added.)

Why is this justified??? Be specific, since I'm sure I can come up with at least one other battle that had the same level of significance (which would render the first quote meaningless, and thus open the door to using adjectives in other battle summaries).

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that this is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. (If it had been a tactical Union victory, there would be no need for further explanation.) I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance; Antietam is considered by James M. McPherson as the turning point of the war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal. You said, "I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance...." The Battle of Chancellorville comes to mind. The same tactical results existed at both Chancellorsville and Antietam. The only difference is who withdrew first, yet the strategic implications are undeniable in each case.

At any rate, you said, "The reason is that this [Antietam] is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. The key adjective here is "inconclusive". Was Antietam inconclusive?

Two points:

1) The Battle of Antietam was NOT tactically inconclusive. Even in the BOA article itself it says, "Lee withdrew from the battlefield first, the technical definition of the tactical loser in a Civil War battle." Therefore, to say it was inconclusive in the summary box is bizarre.

2) Continuing from point #1 above: If the results in the summary box are anything other than Union Victory or Confederate Victory, then I don't see why other battles, such as the Battle of Atlanta, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, etc., can't have the strategic implications included (and the strategic implications of these battles are clearly huge).

Regarding McPherson: I can't respond to why he said what he said about Antietam, since I have no idea how he defines a "turning point", or even if there was more than one such turning point. According to the article, "Turning Point of the ACW", it defines it as:

The idea of a turning point is an event after which most observers would agree that the eventual outcome was inevitable.

What evidence does he provide? In any event, such evidence should appear in the body of the article and NOT in the battle result summary box.

All I'm arguing for is consistency in how battle results in the summary box are handled. You have (rightly) said in the past that the strategic implications of a particular battle should be handled in the body of the article, yet I don't see that applied uniformly, which suggests a definite POV. If Strategic Victory is acceptable for Antietam, then surely other battles deserve such a label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost). After I wrote to you, it occurred to me that there is another example like Antietam, which is the Battle of Perryville, where the battle was tactically inconclusive (although it would not have been if it had gone for another day), but it represented the strategic end of Bragg's Kentucky campaign when he withdrew. We can remove the remark from Antietam about the technical victory, because that is actually just a game that Civil War military historians play. (I wrote that sentence and 99% of the article, so I am entitled to have such opinions.)

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article. After Antietam the Emancipation Proclamation was announced, which essentially made it impossible for the European powers to come to the aid of the Confederacy, and which essentially tipped the balance away from them. (It also happened at the same time that the Confederates suffered significant reverses in Kentucky and Tennessee, ending the only coordinated set of strategic offensives they attempted during the war.)

I would not pay much attention to the turning point article. It was the first Wikipedia article I wrote and it is essentially uncited original research that I have never bothered cleaning up. If I could do it without controversy, I would propose the article for deletion because it would be very, very difficult to fix. The quotation that you took from the article is my personal opinion and I have found since then that many historians have completely different definitions. A very poor effort on my part, but that was 300+ articles ago. :-)

I have no great desire to go on a campaign of making the Infobox results entirely consistent because there are always subsequent editors who want to make changes and the inconsistencies creep back in. If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive. For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail. After all, the National Park Service battle descriptions that we based all of these articles on originally are content with the very simple victory statements. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond directly on this page (without editing it), so please forgive me if this seems to be a conversation with myself, which may not be far from the truth.  :)

You said,

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost).

I didn't mean to suggest that Chancellorsville was NOT a victory. Rather, if Antietam was tactically inconclusive, I was assumming that you were going merely on the number of casualties. And if that is the case, then Chancellorville would be Tactically inconclusive, Confederate Strategic Victory, which would be the same sort of summary result as Antietam. In other words, there are only two major military differences between Antietam and Chancellorsville:

1) Hooker retreated at Chancellorsville, while Lee retreated at Antietam

2) Lee lost his (arguably) his best general at Chancellorsville

And if we're going only on the number of men lost (as a % of army size), then Chancellorville's result summary should use the same language as the language used for Antietam.

Once again, I'm NOT arguing about the specific language used in general. I'm arguing for consistency. I think all battle summary results should be Union/Confederate Victory, or Inconclusive, period. But if we are to add strategic results in the summary box for one battle, then we must do so for other battles.

You said,

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article.

And that's where it belongs, but if he is being used as a reason for adding "strategic victory" to the summary box, then, logically, other historians can be used for other battles.

You said,

If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive.

I'm not so sure that a strategic victory is undefined, but the rest of the sentence is what I'm arguing for. Although we seem to agree on that, then why was the addition of strategic victory added to the Antietam article? Would you mind if I changed it to read merely "Union Victory"?

You said,

For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail.

I disagree. No footnote is required in the battle summary IF it is explained in detail in the body of the article. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say as much to me in the last 2-3 months?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may find it easier to conduct this conversation via e-mail. I have a link in the yellow box at the top of my talk page. Civil War historians do not measure victory by the number of casualties. (For example, Gettysburg had virtually identical casualties on each side, although Confederate casualties were a bit higher proportionately.) You determine the victor by figuring out what the objectives were of each army and see who achieved them. If both, or neither, did then it becomes inconclusive. In the Maryland campaign, McClellan's objective was to destroy Lee's army by attacking it while it was divided. Lee's objective was to influence northern political opinion. So the battle is considered inconclusive because McClellan did not destroy Lee's army, but Lee did not achieve his objective either. (It would be a very controversial move to label the Wikipedia article on Antietam as a Union victory.) At Chancellorsville, Hooker's objective was to crush Lee's Army in a double envelopment and then capture the Confederate capital. Lee's objective was to prevent that. Hooker failed, Lee succeeded in an unambiguous Confederate victory. On the footnote issue, my style is to put the majority of the information into the main text, but a footnote in the box would be a courtesy to the casual reader who only has a few seconds to look at the article. McPherson is only one example of historians who consider Antietam to be a strategic victory for the North. It is not really a controversial issue at that level (only the tactical results are controversial). Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ Myth

Hi Bill, it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually a 'Christ myther'. I think there are three possibilities:

• Jesus was a historical figure to whose life story earlier myths (virgin birth, resurrection) have been added
• He is a compound of historical figures whose stories have become intertwined.
• He is a mythical figure like Osiris or Hercules.

I was genuinely asking you for examples of eyewitness and contemporary accounts of Jesus as I do have an open mind on his existence. 'Just look' is not a adequate response to that question. As I have no religious beliefs, unlike the Christian editors on the page I have nothing invested in Jesus' existence: my worldview does not depend on it being proved either way. What I object to is people who believe in the 'myth theory' being bracketed with Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists which seems way over the top in order to establish their lack of support in academic circles and to come from those - mainly Christians - whose minds are firmly closed on the subject.Haldraper (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Haldraper, sorry for the delayed response. In order to approach the question in an unbiased manner, there would have to be an additional possibility to the list of three you mentioned above. That is, that JC was an historical figure whose life story is accurately portrayed in the gospels.

At any rate, the reason I said "just look" was not to be in any way snide or rude. The problem is that I honestly don't have the time to list examples of eyewitness and contemporary accounts AND then defend the reliability of the documents I would cite.

If you are really interested, there are plenty of scholarly books (and books written for the layman) that discuss the reliability of the NT. Frankly, I don't even want to suggest a particular book for fear that you might think I'm referring you to Christian-propagandist material. You can easily search the Internet (e.g., Amazon.com) and read recommendations for books on both sides of the issue.

Regarding your statement, "...being bracketed with Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists...." Believe me, I understand your concern. However, I honestly don't think that that is what is happening. I think that analogy is this (at least, this is how I read it): the Christ Myth Theory (CMT) is so overwhelmingly rejected by the scholarly community, it is like those who deny the Holocaust.

Now, it is irrelevant whether those who deny the Holocaust are Nazis, or whatever. It's the fact there are otherwise intelligent people, even historians, that deny such a well-attested recent event. It's ludicrous, and that is why the CMT is fringe (i.e., the historicity of JC is well attested).

Or, try to imagine this: there are historians today who deny the Holocaust; what will happen in 2000 years? None of us will be around for it, but I bet you that there will be a whole lot more historians who deny that the Holocaust took place (especially if there is a world-wide cataclysmic event that destroys visual records of the Holocaust).

At any rate, thanks for dropping by. I enjoyed the conversation. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Student complaints

Perhaps the new student complaints section could be incorporated into the tenure denial section? Either as a sub-section or included in the same section? It seems the news is "suggesting" the two are related, or is that just my interpretation?--Supertouch (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes much more sense now. Thank you very much. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Amy Bishop: Things to Add

Ask on the discussion page about the time line of this incident.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/quincy_man_reca.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html

Delahunt speaks out.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100222delahunt_opportunity_missed_to_treat_amy_bishop/srvc=home&position=0

Add PDF docs to external links. This is the police reports of the '86 shooting.

http://www.necn.com/02/13/10/State-Police-investigative-report-86-Bis/landing.html?blockID=180126&feedID=4215

Here's another story that I need to research.

http://www.necn.com/02/13/10/Contradictory-tales-of-1986-Bishop-shoot/landing.html?blockID=180170&feedID=4215

More details in the IHOP incident:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/amy_bishop_was.html

Done.

Defense attorney says something is wrong with her

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/post_214.html

Probably not worth adding in.

Never took anger management course, lack a tenure a factor:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DVDPVG0&show_article=1

Someone else added this into the article.

CMT

Hi Bill, your help with the Christ myth theory is proving vital. Try to be careful with the 3RR, though, it'd be a shame if the trolls tried to have you blocked for a violation and then hijack the article. Eugene (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching this article very closely. And I saw the need for mediation coming a month or so ago, which is why I mentioned that no references be deleted.

But, I have to ask something. Was it me that broke the 3RR rule??? I checked before reverting it and I had only 2 reverts in a 24 hour period of time. [Pause to look up the rule and check the article history]. Ok, for a second, I was concerned that the rule applied to the total number of reverts, not on a per-person basis (which is what the rule states). I made a total of three reverts but not in a 24 hour period; it looks like about 36 hours.

At any rate, I'm going to be adding more to the CMT talk page in a few hours in order to more clearly state the "nature of the dispute". Stay tuned. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CMT

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Eugene (talk)

Done. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Youtube of Ehrman and Finley

I love the way Finley starts to loose his cool at the end of that interview. Eugene (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was cracking up too. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

threats

I think that the ridiculous threats are just a symptom of the opposition's desperation at this point. They see that the mediation is going against them and that the article may, in fact, pass FAC this time around in essentially its current form. Once the article is classed FA it will be extraordinarily difficult to build consensus to rewrite the whole thing in a way that either rehabilitates the theory or broadens the definition sufficiently to make the more thunderous condemnations inappropriate, thus shielding the non-existence hypothesis from being outted as nonsense. This is the endgame, and they know it.

I'm fairly confident that the threat is meaningless. The internet breeds a culture of anonymity that lends itself to posturing and over-the-top rhetoric. Just to be safe, though, I've spoken with the police and submitted a report to the Internet Crime Complaint Center. Eugene (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WLC

Evangelical can have a couple of meanings, one on which is simply fairly doctrinally conservative Christianity of a Protestant and proselytizing sort. WLC is an evangelical in this sense. As for his specific denominational affiliation (Baptist, Methodist, etc.), I don't really know. Like you said, he teaches at a Baptist church, but I'm not sure that is definitve; he could just be a guest. Eugene (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it really so mysterious? He went to Trinity Evangelical Seminary and did two masters. He teaches at Biola and Talbot. He's publishes extensively in the Evangelical Philosophical Society's journal. 173.9.50.146 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as Eugenecurry said above, he teaches at a Baptist church. If you can find a source that says specifically that he is an Evangelical-ThisOrThat, then I have no problem adding it in. I myself have added it in in the past thinking that it should be easy to find a source. I was wrong, so removed it about a month later. It's important that we be accurate in BLPs. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Licona

I think that we might want to cut Licona's blog entry since, given WP:PARITY, it could set a bad precedent of allowing self-published sources from non-professors into the "scholarly reception" section. This could lead to some difficultly with odd-ball sources once the article gets some increased visibility with its FAC and, hopefully, a day on the main page. Licona's interview in Strobel's book and the book he co-authored with Habermas weren't self-published, so they wouldn't be affected by this stance, and the blog articles by professors wouldn't be affected either. Given that Sophia has objected to Licona's article, we could consider the deletion a part of the consensus compromise and use WP:CON to prevent future attempts to include wacky online stuff from wacky online people.

Oh, I think I misunderstood. I thought you were saying to cut the Habermas/Licona book too. My mistake. Ok, then, we are in agreement. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Alithos Anesti

Thanks for the tip.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Christ myth theory

Dear Bill, I'll get back to the article, it took me ages skimming the talk page: enjoyable ages, some very fine repartee, and very good issues. Quality contributors are gathered. I would have thought that meant good things. Good things, but maybe slowly. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. The discussion can get pretty heated at times, but there are several people there who really know their stuff. Anyway, come back when you get a chance. I can promise a whole lot of fun.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

Bill, could you reply to my question on Talk:Christ myth theory about your Wells revert, please? I've asked it two or three times. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reply when the time is appropriate. I will not dodge your questions, but we need to address the issues in a manner that is both orderly and is fair, and clear, for all of us. Please help me do it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You reverted when you wanted to, orderly or not, so please be courteous enough to give your reasons. No editor should have to ask five or six times for an explanation for a wholesale revert of their work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the label of the revert? Your edit misrepresented biblical scholars. Go back and look. In the mean time, please read WP:Civil and stop misrepresenting what I say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Well, apparently I'm an anti-Semite now, rendered all the more odious for disputing the label. I guess I'll have to tell my Jewish grandfather that we can't hang out anymore. Eugene (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading some of the latest comments and I'm shocked. I'll speak more about it with you later today. This has got to stop, but I'm suffering from insomnia right now and I'm trying to get some sleep. Now that I've read the latest outrage of SV's, and the anti-semite accusation, it's not going to be easy to get to sleep. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Thanks for the laugh I got from you posting at AN/I "the vicious, premeditated and, needless to say, uncivil behavior of some admins on this board clearly displays administrative abuse of authority. You guys are supposed to do your best to understand the concerns of both sides of a dispute and resolve issues fairly, and not attempt to belittle, threaten, slander, and insult honest editors acting in good faith. I'm on my knees (not to be cute, but I'm literally typing this on my knees) begging all of the admins who have participated in such behavior to reconsider their actions. If these actions continue, Eugene and I will be forced to lodge a complaint, but I sincerely want to avoid that."

But, to let you know, I am neither an admin nor scared of being threatened by you. I personally saw your post as an insult, personal attack, and threat against ME and against others who commented on that thread. How about I forget your personal attack against me, and in return you and Eugene stop. If you want to take this further I will be happy to show up at whatever place you bring this to, both you and Eugene with your threats about having to escalate this further if we dont handle the situation in the way you want is bullying and does not work around here, everyone can make up their own minds and have their own opinions, if the vast majority of us dont think Slrubenstein did anything that needs to be addressed then that is our opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Cats

No :D. But it seems like it! Just 2! SpigotWho? 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Come play

I've just trimmed the FAQ into something that might be acceptable to both sides. Can you tell me what you think at the deletion talk page?. Also, Ari has dived in with a rash of edits in the sandbox. I don't know if you have any influence with him, but I thought this would be an opportune moment for quiet, reasoned, polite, scholarly argument on the talk page before anybody edits. If you agree, as I don't know him at all, could you run that by him? Anthony (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Anthony (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, if we can show them what we have in mind is not too scary, and it is neutral, skeptics will be more likely to come on board. Anthony (talk)

I agree, and thanks for staying on top of this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now. We'll catch up soon. Anthony (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth

Hi, Bill. Just to make clear, there is really no doubt for me personally about the historicity of Jesus. Neither is there any doubt that myth theory is completely fringe, but the pseudo-history categorization seems completely arbitrary in a field where people can't decide what proper history is. On one side Ehrman says a real historian should not assert miracles, while on the other side Bloomquist states that historical Jesus studies is confined to "pseudo-history" because it lacks an imaginative approach. Please just think about that, when a theologian calls the mainstream position pseudo-history, can you blame me for thinking that the term is used a bit frivolously in the field? Vesal (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An Answer

User:Alastair Haines is prohibited from editing at Wikipedia. Editors who are NOT in conflict with User:Alastair Haines and support his immediate return are strongly urged to make constant references to him on-wiki following his departure and throughout his banishment. --Buster7 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR?

Maybe I've miscounted, but it looks like you might have broken 3RR on Christ myth theory. You might want to step back for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Akhilleus!!! Thanks for the heads up. I've been very careful to avoid the 3RR, as far as I understand it. I'm going to remove the POV tag tomorrow, after around 3 PM my time, unless some editors back up their claims with reliable sources. I already undid the POV tag twice today, so I got one more to go before I violate the rule. Once again, thank you!!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, be careful. As I said, I didn't count carefully, and you seem to be under the impression that the 3RR only covers the same revert—but in fact if you make four unrelated reverts you've broken the 3RR. Also, if you keep up a pattern of waiting until the 24 hour period is up, and then reverting, you can get blocked anyway, because the rule is meant to prevent edit warring in general. So consider leaving the POV tag in place; it's not hurting anybody, and if we can establish a spirit of cooperation (I know, but be optimistic) it will end up making the article better. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Once again, thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What an Ari thing to do. --Ari (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody is a comedian!  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm Back

I was on vacation. I'm back now. Eugene (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:)

The beauty of my ANI ordeal is that it began with a misunderstanding. I quite innocently used the word "libel" to describe something Verbal said about me, not knowing there is a history here of people waving the word around as a covert threat of legal action. Verbal (it being quite clear from the context that I had no such intention) then took it to AN/I. Then ensued ugliness.

And here, at my AN/I, the same admins who read evil intent in "libel" are reading the worst possible spin into every ambiguity of what I say.

I don't know, it seems kind of like a theme coursing through the experience. Sort of symphonic... actually more like operatic. Anthony (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand completely. The thing that really irritates me though is that this should never have happened. And given the fact that all conversation/debate is limited to what would essentially be called "email", it has resulted in a huge amount of time being dedicated (wasted) to responding to our critics that could have been better put to use in editing and rational discussion. Anyway, welcome back to the "land of the living".  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indef block can mean 5 minutes. E just needs to accept he was out of line. Anthony (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he knows he was out of line. It was a foolish thing he did, but I honestly believe that the powers that be have it in for him. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I doubt the article will get anywhere without him. If we can come to consensus between you, him and a few others on one side, and SV, Bruce and a few others on the other, the article will stabilize. A huge sticking point is fringe (which I notice has been removed) and pseudo-. Presently, the article has:

While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[2] most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[3]

I think the section beginning "most of whom..." should go, and [2] should point to Wells, Price & Doherty's confirmation. It would clearly establish CMTs status in mainstream scholarship, without any semblance of bias. I'll start a section at talk. Anthony (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what most classical historians think about the theory. It seems speculative to me. Anyone who has weighed in has usually been a critic, but they are also the ones with vested interests it seems. I agree the "most of whom..." section should be cut. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started reviewing all the quotes in the FAQ using pseudo-X and similar descriptors; but I'm exhaused and busy so it may be a few days. I want to sort them into (a) declarations that, in general, scholarship thinks it's junk/pseudo - there's quite a number (b) statements of the author's personal opinion that it is junk/pseudo, and (c) the rest - mainly indicating it is at the fringe.

Then I'll look at who the authors are that call it junk/pseudo: specialty and religious orientation. I know the latter shouldn't matter... but it does. After that, I'll form a firmer opinion about the "most of whom..." bit. But now I need to sleep for a couple of days. Anthony (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Old CMT FAQs

Important: In order to save editors from repeatedly addressing questions which have already been posed, I've assembled this page to help. Note that this is not the official FAQ of the Christ myth theory article; it is merely a list of quotations and observations I find helpful to refer to from time to time.

To view a response, click the [show] link to the right of the objection.

1: Can this article just equate the Christ Myth theory with a denial of the historical existence of Jesus?

Response: Numerous premiere scholars at top-tier universities have done exactly this, including the ones cited by the definition of this article. Of course, some authors have spoken of Jesus as a "myth" without going so far as to say that no historical Jesus whatsoever existed. But this article focuses on a narrow range of ideas united by a common conceptual link, not coincidental semantic similarities. Were the article to discuss every view that sees Jesus as a "myth", in some sense, it would have to discuss the views of C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, René Girard, and so on, and this would clearly be unhelpful. Further, while it is true that some notable advocates of the Christ Myth theory proper have claimed that isolated sayings from ancient philosophers were plugged into a mythic Jesus persona, this in no way means that these advocates believe in some minimal historical Jesus. Just because Bart Simpson has said and written things often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, this doesn't mean that Eleanor Roosevelt or Hebert Hoover is the "real" Bart Simpson, the small historical core around which a mass of fiction has accreted.

Citations:

• Defense of Biblical criticism was not helped by the revival at this time of the 'Christ-Myth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F. C. Conybeare.

William Horbury, "The New Testament", in Ernest Nicholson, A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p. 55

• Zindler depends on secondary works and writes with the aim of proving the Christ-Myth theory, namely, the theory that the Jesus of history never existed.

John T. Townsend, "Christianity in Rabbinic Literature", in Isaac Kalimi & Peter J. Haas, Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006) p. 150

• The radical solution was to deny the possibility of reliable knowledge of Jesus, and out of this developed the Christ myth theory, according to which Jesus never existed as a historical figure and the Christ of the Gospels was a social creation of a messianic community.

William R. Farmer, "A Fresh Approach to Q", in Jacob Neusner, Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1975) p. 43

• Negative as these [hyper-minimalist] conclusions appear, they must be strictly distinguished from the theories of the mythologists. According to the critics whom we may term minimalists, Jesus did live, but his biography is almost totally unknown to us. The mythologists, on the other hand, declare that he never existed, and that his history, or more exactly the legend about him, is due to the working of various tendencies and events, such as the prophetic interpretation of Old Testament texts, visions, ecstasy, or the projection of the conditions under which the first group of Christians lived into the story of their reputed founder.

Maurice Goguel, "Recent French Discussion of the Historical Existence of Jesus Christ", Harvard Theological Review 19 (2), 1926, pp. 117–118

• The Christ-Myth theory (that Jesus never lived) had a certain vogue at the beginning of this century but is not supported by contemporary scholarship.

Alan Richardson, The Political Christ (London: SCM, 1973) p. 113

• If this account of the matter is correct, one can also see why it is that the 'Christ-myth' theory, to the effect that there was no historical Jesus at all, has seemed so plausible to many...

Hugo A. Meynell, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Bernard Lonergan (2nd ed.) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991) p. 166

• [W]e have to explain the origin of Christianity, and in so doing we have to choose between two alternatives. One alternative is to say that it originated in a myth which was later dressed up as history. The other is to say that it originated with one historical individual who was later mythologized into a supernatural being. The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory.

George Walsh, The Role of Religion in History (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998) p. 58

• The Jesus-was-a-myth school... argue[s] that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth, that he never existed.

Clinton Bennett, In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images (New York: Continuum, 2001) p. 202

• Though [Charles Guignebert] could not accept either the Christ myth theory, which held that no historical Jesus existed, or the Dutch Radical denial that Paul authored any of the epistles, Guignebert took both quite seriously.

Robert M. Price, in Tom Flynn, The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007) p. 372

• As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend.

Paul R Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165

• Price uncritically embraces the dubious methods and results of the Jesus Seminar, adopts much of the (discredited) Christ-Myth theory from the nineteenth century (in which it was argued that Jesus never lived), and so on.

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006) p. 25

• For as "extreme" a critic as Rudolf Bultmann, the existence of the historical Jesus is a necessity; and if historical criticism could successfully establish the "Christ-myth" theory, viz., that Jesus never really lived, Bultmann’s enture theological structure would be shaken.

George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) p. 15

• And a recent attempt to revive the Christ myth theory (that Jesus was simply invented as a peg on which to hang the myth of a Savior God), hardly merits serious consideration.

Reginald H. Fuller & Pheme Perkins, Who Is This Christ?: Gospel Christology and Contemporary Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1983) p. 130

• ...on the one hand, literal acceptance of everything in the New Testament as the veridical record of what happened, and, on the other, some form of Christ-myth theory which denies that there ever was a Jesus. But neither of these extreme positions stands up to scrutiny."

John Macquarrie, The Scope of Demythologizing: Bultmann and His Critics (London: SCM, 1960) p. 93

• But in contrast to the Christ-myth theories which proliferated at an earlier time, it would seem that today almost all reputable scholars do accept that Jesus existed and that the basic facts about him are well established.

John Macquarrie, "The Humanity of Christ", in Theology, Vol. 74 (London: SPCK, 1971) p. 247

• His published work on the Synoptic Problem had already contributed towards exploding the theory of the “Christ-myth”—that Jesus as a historical person never existed—by providing the two oldest records of His life to be genuine historical documents."

George Seaver, Albert Schweitzer: The Man and His Mind (New York: Harper, 1955) p. 45

• In Germany, England, Holland, America, and France, a group of scholars developed the hypothesis that Christ had never lived at all, the Christ-myth theory.

Margaret Hope Bacon, Let This Life Speak: The Legacy of Henry Joel Cadbury‎ (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987) p. 22

• There have even been learned and intelligent men who have denied that Jesus ever existed: the so-called "Christ-myth" theory.

Donald MacKenzie MacKinnon, Objections to Christian Belief (London: Constable, 1963) p. 67

• JESUS CHRIST, MYTH THEORY OF.

The theory that Jesus Christ never existed.

Bill Cooke, Dictionary Of Atheism, Skepticism, & Humanism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2005) p. 278

2: Is the Christ Myth theory actually fringe, or is it just a respectable minority position?

Response: Numerous experts in the fields of biblical studies and ancient history indicate that scholarship is virtually unanimous in its rejection of the Christ Myth theory. Far from seeing it as a respectable minority view, many of these scholars regard the theory with contempt—sometimes quite vigorous contempt. Even the advocates of the Christ myth theory concede that their views are regarded this way by the scholarly establishement. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, the article notes this fact and seeks to present the subject according to the conventions of Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

Citations:

• [T]he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218

• It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed.

G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27

• "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"

Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179

• "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

• Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii

• In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence.

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) pp. xxxiii & 54

• The defectiveness of [the Christ myth theory's] treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question.

Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269

• If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible.

W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", George Mason University's History News Network, 2004

• [The non-Christian references to Jesus from the first two centuries] render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score.

Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 124

• [A]n attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible.

I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.) (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004) pp. 15–16

• A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the aurthors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese.

N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48

• A school of thought popular with cranks on the Internet holds that Jesus didn’t actually exist.

Tom Breen, The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus: Dispatches from the Intersection of Christianity and Pop Culture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) p. 138

• I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character... We must [, according to Christ myth advocates,] perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites and beliefs of early Christians were distilled from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely disparate, so devoid of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind, you rake together a thousand irrelevant thrums of mythology, picked up at random from every age, race, and clime; you get a "Christist" to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakespeareans we have seen nothing like it.

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the Views of J. M. Robertson, A. Drews and W. B. Smith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009/1914) pp. 42 & 95

• Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed.

Leander Keck, Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) p. 13

• While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history.

Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233

• It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus...

Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 (2nd ed.) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) pp. 80 & 166

• We do not need to take seriously those writers who occasionally claim that Jesus never existed at all, for we have clear evidence to the contrary from a number of Jewish, Latin, and Islamic sources.

John Drane, "Introduction", in John Drane, The Great Sayings of Jesus: Proverbs, Parables and Prayers (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 1999) p. 23

• By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.

Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, Rudolf Bultmann & Karl Kundsin; translated by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962) p. 62

• Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.

Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction

• It is the nature of historical work that we are always involved in probability judgments. Granted, some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed and really was crucified, just as Julius Caeser really existed and was assassinated.

Marcus Borg, "A Vision of the Christian Life", The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Marcus Borg & N. T. Wright (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 236

• To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200

• I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188

• Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121

• The historical reality both of Buddha and of Christ has sometimes been doubted or denied. It would be just as reasonable to question the historical existence of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne on account of the legends which have gathered round them... The attempt to explain history without the influence of great men may flatter the vanity of the vulgar, but it will find no favour with the philosophic historian.

James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 7 (3rd ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 311

• We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE.

Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999) p. 38

• [T]here is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed.

Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) p. 33

• Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel.

Will Durant, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972) p. 557

• There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity.

E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993) p. 10

• There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 34

• Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16

• No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings.

James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. xxi–xxv

• [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism.

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25

• The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church.

Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8

• There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century.

Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009

• I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

• What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

• Richard [Carrier] takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship.

William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009

• The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.

James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) p. 29

• This is always the fatal flaw of the 'Jesus myth' thesis: the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. [Robert] Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really.

James D. G. Dunn, "Response to Robert M. Price", in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) p. 98

• Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes the stories of the New Testament any more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?' The critics can be answered satisfactorily...For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion [of embarrassment] demonstrates that Jesus existed.

Alan F. Segal, "Believe Only the Embarrassing", Slate, 2005

• Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123

• Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine [of Alexandria]'s fate as an unhistorical myth...

Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p. 37

• An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis.

Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) pp. 435–436

• In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007

• The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given.

Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p. 32

• While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio.

Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 8 & 23–24

• You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can't eliminate them. That's why you have to put certain checks and balances in place… Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You're never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe.

Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) p. 112

• If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000

• A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat.

Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998) p. 168

• When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, 'Do you really believe that?' Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator.

William Lane Craig, "Question 90: Jesus and Pagan Mythology", Reasonable Faith, 2009

• Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust?

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

• The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. For some it's simply too horrific to affirm. For others it's an elaborate conspiracy to coerce religious sympathy. But the deniers live in a historical dreamworld.

John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006) pp. 14-15

• I just finished reading, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The first view was given by Robert Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… The title of Price’s chapter is 'Jesus at the Vanishing Point.' I am convinced that if Price's total skepticism were applied fairly and consistently to other figures in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Nero, etc.), they would all be reduced to 'the vanishing point.' Price's chapter is a perfect example of how someone can always, always find excuses to not believe something they don't want to believe, whether that be the existence of Jesus or the existence of the holocaust.

Dennis Ingolfsland, "Five views of the historical Jesus", The Recliner Commentaries, 2009

• The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, 'Jesus Never Existed!' 'They won’t listen to me!' and label those inside the arena as 'Anti-Intellectuals,' 'Fundamentalists,' 'Misguided Liberals,' and 'Flat-Earthers.' Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says 'The Holocaust Never Happened!'

Michael R. Licona, "Licona Replies to Doherty's Rebuttal", Answering Infidels, 2005

• Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.

Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008

• An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth.

Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002) p. 164

• An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare.

Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256

• When all the evidence brought against Jesus' historicity is surveyed it is not found to contain any elements of strength.

Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1)

• It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial resemblances, of debatable interpretation into the systems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls... The historical reality of the personality of Jesus alone enables us to understand the birth and development of Christianity, which otherwise would remain an enigma, and in the proper sense of the word, a miracle.

Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926) pp. 30 & 244

• Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed.

John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎ (London: Skeffington & Son, 1933) p. 31

• That both in the case of the Christians, and in the case of those who worshipped Zagreus or Osiris or Attis, the Divine Being was believed to have died and returned to life, would be a depreciation of Christianity only if it could be shown that the Christian belief was derived from the pagan one. But that can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing.

Edwyn R. Bevan, in Thomas Samuel Kepler, Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950) p. 44

• The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position.

Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9

• Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity…

UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited.

Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166

• One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism."

James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010

• In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian.

Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23

• To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method.

John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23.

• When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories [i.e. the Christ myth theory] he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels.

Morton Smith, in R. Joseph Hoffman, Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 48

• Of course, there can be no toleration whatever of the idea that Jesus never existed and is only a concoction from these pagan stories about a god who was slain and rose again.

Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Menorah, 1943) p. 107

• Virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that there is enough information from ancient non-Christian sources to give the lie to the myth (still, however, widely believed in popular circles and by some scholars in other fields--see esp. G. A. Wells) which claims that Jesus never existed.

Craig L. Blomberg, "Gospels (Historical Reliability)", in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992) p. 292

• In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today.

Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196

• Dr. Wells was there [I.e. a symposium at the University of Michigan] and he presened his radical thesis that maybe Jesus never existed. Virtually nobody holds this position today. It was reported that Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University, even though he is a skeptic himself, responded that Dr. Wells's view was "absurd".

Gary Habermas, in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989) p. 45

• I.e. if we leave out of account the Christ-myth theories, which are hardly to be reckoned as within the range of serious criticism.

Alexander Roper Vidler, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 253

• Such Christ-myth theories are not now advanced by serious opponents of Christianity—they have long been exploded ..."

Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church (London: SCM, 1959) p. 14

• In the early years of this century, various theses were propounded which all assert that Jesus never lived, and that the story of Jesus is a myth or legend. These claims have long since been exposed as historical nonsense. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the first three decades of our era, probably from 6-7 BC to 30 AD. That is a fact.

Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976) p. 65

• There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavor to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) p. x

• The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case

Charles E. Charleston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3

• Although it is held by Marxist propaganda writers that Jesus never lived and that the Gospels are pure creations of the imagination, this is not the view of even the most radical Gospel critics.

Bernard L. Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999) p. 159

3: Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV?

Response: While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy.

4: Isn't this article just a content fork of other articles like the historicity of Jesus?

Response: There is some degree of overlap between this and other articles, but this merely reflects the policies of Wikipedia:Summary style. Historicity of Jesus details the evidence used to establish the historical existence of Jesus. That article then, at the end, splits into "historical Jesus" (an article on scholarship in which the aforementioned evidence is accepted and Jesus is "reconstructed") and "Christ myth theory" (an article on scholarship in which the aforementioned evidence is rejected and Jesus is "deconstructed").

Eugeneacurry

How is Eugeneacurry unable to respond to comments? His block didn't protect his talk page access, and he's edited since the block...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the block is that you are not allowed to edit even your own talk page except to respond to the block (e.g., to request an unblock). Am I wrong about that? At any rate, it was an uncivil comment, which is the reason it was removed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(replying to Bill)

Talk page access is only removed if you abuse it by insulting or attacking people. Normally it's left open.

People often use it to continue conversations or start new ones, or to make proposed changes to articles which others can then review and use if they find them helpful.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I still think BB's comment is uncivil, however. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry again

It's not uncivil to ask an alleged Christian to defend his actions. And unless I overlooked something, he is not prevented from posting on his own talk page. Here's the deal: Un-Christian behavior sets a bad example for someone who alleges to be a man of God. The Christians I know don't behave that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect a Christian to answer such a question calmly. If he doesn't, then I'll rub out my question and his answer, and then everyone should be happy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

An "alleged" Christian??? Also, on what basis do you claim that his actions were "un-Christian"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Because real Christians don't create attack pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What is that? The 11th commandment? "And the Lord God of Israel saith to Moses, 'Thou shalt not create Wikipedia attack pages, or anger thine admins'. So let it be written, so let it be done." The next thing I expect you to say is that the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch (that is used to blow thine enemies to tiny bits) is not Christian either. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how many ostensible Christians claim to be able to speak to what it is that a Christian would or would not do, but any universal agreement on what it means to be a Christian or act like a Christian ended long ago, according to my reading! 74.178.231.10 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect a higher standard from someone claiming to be Christian. Creating an attack page falls short. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A higher standard than whom? It sounds like you're defining Christians, or at least "good" Christians (whatever that means to you), as being generally better people than non-Christians. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Taking a step back - my initial impression was that this was a fair question, but on reflection I think it has some aspects of tap-dancing on the blocked parties grave.

Bugs, I don't think you were grossly out of line - it took rethinking it a bit to come to my current conclusion - but I think that at this time I agree with Bill that perhaps it's a bit too much and that we should avoid rubbing salt into Eugeneacurry's wounds that way.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

GWH, thank you for your comments. Eugene has apologized so at this point I think it would be best to let the block and hurt feelings run their course, eventually (hopefully) resulting in a "forgive and forget" kind of reconciliation. I think Eugene will eventually come out of this a better Wiki editor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at WP:RFC/NAME

Please refrain from insulting other editors, as you did here. --erachima talk 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a humorous remark in order to show the silliness of the thread. I guess you missed the humor, which was indicated by the "LOL" at the end of the section. Lighten up. Editing Wikipedia is more enjoyable if we don't take ourselves too seriously. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I second that. (!) As a real world media executive, I'm accustomed to Wiki being regarded as the Ebay of information in our industry: good stuff here and there, but largely a heap of junk. However, with a bit of joie de vivre pumped into the ventilation around here, I think Wiki space via the context of entropy might actually evolve into the definitive global notebook of modern consciousness it claims to strive toward becoming...which is exactly why I took a proactive decision to join for myself, instead of following the path of my contemporaries who leave "web schnucking" to the interns and bots.

There's a markedly human feel to Wiki projects/pages; and to be sure, there's not a more consistent source of cultural commentary in existence. Any SEO consultant worth his weight in table salt can affirm that search queries untouched by Wikipedia are web traffic lanes coursing at a snail's pace. (!) Yet, superlatives aside - offhand I'd estimate that at best: less than 5% of a quarter fraction in any given demographic is currently, has been, or will ever actually toss a hat into the Wiki fray as a contributor. Which, if you take a moment to consider, is a figure not only regrettably pitiful from marketing/brand perspectives but also, is a very, very sinister social canary in this coal mine. News Article: WIKIPEDIAS JEWISH PROBLEM

We need castaways to have a great party on the island; unless only survivors stand to win...and who exactly might those winners be: the nitpickiest syntax hagglers, malcontented brainiac fact junkies or hardcore sticklers for punctuation. (!)

Come on...Wiki space needs more kids. Foreigners. Bad spellers. Naughty bits. Pranksters! That's what made matriculation more than a chore for us all. Young brains are left to rot netsurfing inane YouTube videos but if they made an effort to engage here in Wiki, which welcoming committee would usher them lovingly through the entrance?

Bravo to affable users such as Bill the Cat 7 (talk) who champion Wiki conviviality. (!)

Wolfpussy ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the complement. Also, the article you link to above (about Wikipedia's "Jewish problem") was excellent. I concur with the author's opinion 100%. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought User:Sodomite turning up at that discussion was purrfect! Anthony (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so too! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current discussion about the Jewish problem is here. Anthony (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I agree with the comments you made on the admin board. The next time you find such a discussion going on, please let me know. I'm just so sick and tired of the self-righteous attitude as well as the hive-mind-set of so many people on Wikipedia. In fact, recently I've started editing Dungeon & Dragons (4th edition, which is pretty cool; check it out if you're a gamer) articles just so I can get away from the controversial stuff. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is but it's a good look. --Ari (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I fat-fingered it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Bill I do not think these types of comments are necessary and please at least sign your comments.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a little levity. And I signed by comment, which was really just me imparting words of wisdom. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus RFC

I'm going to open the Historicity of Jesus RFC in a day or two, and have drafted one viewpoint on what should happen before we open this up to the larger community. It's available for view at User:AKMask/JesusRFC. I'd like you to collaborate on it to fill out the opposing side if you would be so kind, that way we can determine the larger consensus. -- ۩ Mask 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I commented on that article's talk page. Hope that's OK. I watchlist DnD editor's talk pages, is how I found out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus: arbitration

Discuss. [1] Noloop (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Mediation

[2] Noloop (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Many Jesus-related articles, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Edit war out "Classical historians"

Over at CMT there are some POV editors trying to edit war out "classical historians" from the lead. The fact that historians reject CMT is well attested in the citations as I am sure you are aware. However, the citations seem meaningless and they are intent on pushing their POV that it is only Christian theologians that reject CMT. It is not worth getting blocked over childish POV pushers so it would be great if you could look at that once you come back. --Ari (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching that page and have been dismayed at the extreme effort being put into POV-pushing and the outright ignoring of reliable sources simply because of what seems to me to be anti-Christian bigotry. I was about to revert an edit earlier today, but you got to it about a couple of minutes before I did. Also, I've already posted comments trying to inform people what the mainstream consensus is but they just ignored me. So I think I'm limited to reverting blatant falsehoods since constructive debate seems not to be forthcoming. But if something comes up that hasn't been addressed yet, you can be sure I'll chime in—that is, I'm going to see this article achieve stability even if it takes a long time.

By the way, SlimVirgin has asked you a question on the CMT page. It would be great if you could supply the references she asked for, since she'll probably ignore me should I answer her. At any rate, the words of a professional historian mean more than my words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)