Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory

The mediator assigned to this case is NuclearWarfare. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi all. I go by NuclearWarfare on Wikimedia. I also happen to be an administrator, but I'll approach this mediation with my editor cap firmly on; hopefully no admin tools will be needed. Xavexgoem asked me to mediate this content dispute between the six of you who have agreed to mediation (Eugene, Bill the Cat 7, --Akhilleus, Sophia ♫, ^^James^^, and jbolden1517). My talk page will always be open to you guys if you need anything, but I'd like to keep discussion on this particular page whenever possible. While I have read the article as it stands, I have intentionally not read past archives, so as not to color my impression of this disagreement. I thought we could begin by talking over the dispute generally. Could each party give a short summary of the dispute and the individual points that they feel ought to be changed (or not changed, as it may be)? NW (Talk) 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Eugene

The article currently includes a "pseudohistory" category tag which causes it to appear on the pseudohistory category page, a subset of the broader "pseudo-scholarship" category page. While admitting that the subject of the article is fringe (diff), SOPHIA has objected to the pseudohistory categorization (diff) on the grounds that the sources used to cite a series of denialist comparisons (footnotes 6-8) are unreliable (diff). I, however, think that the categorization as pseudohistory is perfectly acceptable for two reasons: (1) The works used in support of the denialist comparisons easily qualify as reliable sources according to the criteria given by WP:IRS and as qualified for articles like this by WP:PARITY; (2) even without the denialist comparisons, the categorization can stand on the strength of the virtually unanimous scholarly consensus against the theory and the stinging anathemas leveled against it by numerous notable scholars (see FAQ #2). In fact, given the cumulative force of these two points, I feel that SOPHIA's attempts to draw the article into disrepute over this issue through the inclusion of an NPOV tag itself amounts to an example of disruptive POV editing as outlined by WP:DIS. Eugene (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bill the Cat 7

I fully agree with Eugene's statement above. The only thing I would like to add is two links to a YouTube video (audio) in which Bart Ehrman, an atheist/agnostic New Testament scholar, clearly expresses contempt for the "Christ myth theory". Here is part 1, which is about 10 minutes long, and here is Part 2, which is about 6 minutes long. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SOPHIA

I haven't edited for about a year and was surprised to see the Christ myth being compared to holocaust denial/moon landing hoax theories so prominently. The theory is fringe but not comparable to the hoax theories due to the complete absence of early 1st century historical evidence/documents that mention Jesus therefore giving room for alternative theories to develop. I objected to the addition of the tag and the fact that the quotes used to support it are from the extreme end of the apologetic view on this subject, and therefore should be handled in a balanced way. I have effectively been called a liar,[1] an anti christian bigot,[2] and a disruptive editor (see above). I have edited on that page on and off for over 4 years and have never known the atmosphere to be so combative, a read of the edit summaries on the talk page is quite illuminating. My view is that a balanced neutral version of the article would note the comparisons with hoaxers/denialists but not tag the article or push this view in the lede, where the scholarly dismissal is more appropriate alone. Sophia ♫ 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus

As far as I can tell the category system exists to suck Wikipedia editors into pointless disputes rather than to assist readers, so I can't get too worked up about whether this article appears in Category:Pseudohistory or not. However, I agree with Eugene that the CMT is pseudohistorical; it departs significantly from ordinary historical method and results, as shown by the amply documented remarks of scholars. Really, any historical theory which is fringe is therefore pseudohistorical. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by jbolden1517

I would agree with SOPHIA that the problem in this article is one of balance. The article as it stands is incredibly unbalanced. The most offensive quotes from opponents of the theory are given prominent position. Proponents are given essentially no space, the theory isn't described at all. Key ideas within the theory aren't addressed. Comments by well known scholars that are opposed to its classification as a dead theory, even while disagreeing, aren't mentioned. Supporters in other disciplines, ranging from history of religions, to anthropology to world renowned poets aren't mentioned, all mention of there positions was removed. The article as it stands is an unequivocal condemnation of the theory and its supporters and there is simply no evidence that the academic community, in general, is that hostile. Wikipedia should IMHO never unequivocally condemn theories with large scale support. I would use the classic example that Jimmy Wells, himself edit on, Tired light, of a theory which is rejected almost entirely by the academic community yet still described well and discussed appropriately. If you contrast the tone of these two articles both with roughly equal levels of support I think the difference in the balance is clear. jbolden1517^Talk 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ^^James^^

I am having trouble finding the time to participate, but I'll give it a go. I agree with jbolden1517 above. I disagree with the use of extreme partisan sources or one-off obscure remarks to source the claims that the Christ Myth theory is akin to holocaust denial. There are no serious substantive comparisons. The mainstream public view is that holocaust revisionism is akin to racism. Should wikipedia be in the business of advertsing such dubious (and frankly disgusting) comparisons? The cart is before the horse here. As SOPHIA has said elsewhere: Wikipedia used to be about selecting sources to represent an overall picture of a subject, not finding whatever quote you could to make it stick. That's all I can contribute for now. ^^James^^ (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

From looking at this, it seems that everyone agrees that the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory; it is just a matter of how much weight discussing the degree of fringeness should be given in the article. The best way to do that is probably to go right to the heart of the matter and examine the sources. What five sources are traditionally considered the authoritative sources on this topic? NW (Talk) 01:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best way to frame the question. Are you asking about the five most authoritative sources that advocate the theory, or are you asking about the five most authoritative sources that evaluate the theory from an outside perspective? Either way, I doubt there will be agreement about which ones they are. Except for a brief period in the early 20th century, academic sources have largely ignored this topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the latter of the two that you raise. There seems to be a good number of sources here; what would you generally say is the most authoritative of those? It doesn't matter if there is disagreement; this is just to get a general set of journal articles and books so as to be able to refer to a common list of sources. NW (Talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also a little unclear as to what you're asking for. Are you asking for [1] a list of the five most authoritative sources that are completely dedicated to discussing the Christ myth theory? Or are you asking for [2] the five most authoritative modern (and therefore up-to-date) sources that happen to refer to the Christ myth theory? Or are you asking for [3] the five most authoritative sources that describe the Christ myth theory as denialist hogwash?

Like Akhilleus said, mainstream scholarship hasn't spent a lot of time on the Christ myth theory since about the turn of the 20th century; it's been considered effective refuted since then and most don't bother to beat the dead horse. So, in terms of the five most prestigious works wholly dedicated to discussing the CMT, [1], they all come from that period: Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1); Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912); 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); Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926); Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934).

Newer quite authoritative works also mention the theory, but, as Van Voorst says "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [CMT] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely." Probably the five most serious works that fall into this caregory, [2], would be the following: Mark Allan Powell,Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus 2nd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Robert E. Van Voorst, "Nonexistence Hypothesis", in James Leslie Houlden, Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003); Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004); James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

As for [3], these would be the five most authoritative sources: Mark Allan Powell,Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998); John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, (2000); Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: an Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007); Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). Eugene (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC) (Additional note, the article now contains a quotation from Emil Brunner, the late University of Zurich professor, that uses the phrase "pseudo-history" to describe the Christ myth theory. Eugene (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

Wow, pretty colors! The only thing I might change in Eugene's presentation is that Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus has two chapters devoted to this topic (you need to look at Bowden's translation of the revised German edition to get both chapters--other translations are from an earlier German edition which lacked one of the chapters). Schweitzer's discussion is comprehensive and sympathetic (in the sense of "treating the sources fairly"). While Schweitzer only gives the subject two chapters in a much longer book, it's a more comprehensive treatment than most sources give the idea--and The Quest of the Historical Jesus is one of the most important books on the historical Jesus written in the first half of the 20th century. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I comment on sources, a clarification. I do agree that the theory is fringe, but not to the degree that others suggest it is. For example, Tom Harpur's book The Pagan Christ was the #1 national bestseller in Canada the year it came out. A documentary of the same name produced by the CBC won the Platinium Award for Special Documentaries at the 41st WorldFest Remi Awards. There are other popular documentaries such as Zeitgeist, The God Who Wasn't There and Religulous. Writers such as Freke and Gandy and DM Murdock have helped popularize the theory. While there is a great deal of mainstream interest in this theory, I do agree that it is a minority view. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A clarification of James' clarification: The article currently notes that an appreciable minority of the general population in English speaking countries subscribe to the theory. But popular interest doesn't equate with "mainstream interest" in any meaningful sense as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. The Da Vinci Code was on the New York Times Best Seller list for roughly three full years and numerous American networks aired documentaries/exposes centering on the book. Also, when Holy Blood, Holy Grail was released years earlier, it also was a best seller and a few television networks ran documentaries centering on that book. But none of this means that Baigent's goof-ball theories enjoy "mainstream" anything. And neither do Harpur's. Eugene (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in $.02 here, I agree with Eugeneacurry's analogy but disagree strongly with his conclusion. I'm not a big fan of Brown's book either, but I can't deny that the ideas in the da Vinci code have millions of subscribers. What it lacks is political power. It is very much like the distinction between a dialect of a language and a separate language. There is no meaningful linguist distinction it is wholly political, " "a language is a dialect with an army ". jbolden1517^Talk 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The CMT is not simply a "minority" view, nor is it simply "fringe". It is downright crazy, which is why it has been compared with flat earthism, Holocaust denial, and the moon landing hoax by even atheist/agnostic historians. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Eugene, I was referring to either [1] or [2]; either is acceptable. Could you pull a few quotes from the authors of those works about their position on Christ myth theory (pull quotes from both sets please)? Looking at their writers' wordings would be useful. NW (Talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here are some quotations from group [1]:

• "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)

• "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

• "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

• "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

• "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, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934, pp. xxxiii & 54

• (For Akhilleus: "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 )

And here's what group [2] says:

• "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

• "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,[3] The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xxiii

• "Sixth, Wells and others advanced the nonexistence hypothesis not for objective scholarly reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes… Among New Testament scholars and historians, the theory of Jesus’ nonexistence remains effectively dead as a scholarly question."

Robert E. Van Voorst, "Nonexistence Hypothesis", in James Leslie Houlden, Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 660

• "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,[4] The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage, London: T. & T. Clark, 2004, p. 231 & 233

• "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

• (In keeping with the 5+1 format of [1] above, here's another modern citation I've recently found which, considering both its author and publisher, could easily make it into group [2]: "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

So what we find is that both groups ([1] & [2]) of preeminently authoritative sources are dissmissive of the theory, charge it with dishonest methodology, and compare it with various crack-pot theories: the Baconian theory in the past, Holocaust denial in the present. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrast the way this article is handled whilst editorship is in the grip of the opposing view, to the way Intelligent design is presented. Although that article is frequented by Dawinists, there is no mention of "holocaust denial" or "moon hoax" or "flat earth" despite the fact that these claims have been leveled,[5][6][7] and the "pseudoscience" category is specifically attributed to a body who would be considered authoritative by most people. Looking at the Christ/Jesus myth = skinhead quotes it is notable that they are all very recent - the oldest being 1998, but most from the last 5 years. It almost looks like the ID community is looking for payback. Sophia ♫ 07:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that any of these scholars are affiliated with th ID movement; there's no need to resort to baseless conspiracy theories here. Also, since ID has at least a handful of professional academic specialist supporters (and the CMT doesn't), it's not surprising that this article includes these quote while ID's article doesn't. Eugene (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, Sophia, I'm NOT a Creationist or an ID'er. I firmly and 100% believe in Evolution. Having said that, the CMT is just as crazy to me as is Holocaust denial and Creationism. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting quote from the Baptist Faith and Message that shows that it is justified to question the impartiality of christian authors. "In Christian education there should be a proper balance between academic freedom and academic responsibility. Freedom in any orderly relationship of human life is always limited and never absolute. The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists."[8] Sophia ♫ 08:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

None of the authors quoted here are members of the Southern Baptist Comvention and none of them teach/taugh at SBC schools, as far as I know. Your appeal to the BF&M is a non-sequitor. Eugene (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

SOPHIA seems to be assuming, as she often does, that 1) anyone who studies early Christianity is necessarily a Christian, 2) anyone who believes that there was a historical Jesus is necessarily a Christian, and 3) anyone who thinks that the Christ myth theory is a crackpot theory is necessarily a Christian, and one of the sort that subscribes to Intelligent Design and believes that the Bible is literally true. All of these assumptions are incorrect, of course.

Let's get something straight about the comparisons to Holocaust denial. Scholars make these comparisons not to smear advocates of a nonhistorical Jesus as racists (or "skinheads" as SOPHIA puts it); they make these comparisons to say that the theory's advocates are out of touch with historical reality. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Akhilleus. I even posted audio of an atheist/agnostic scholar (Bart Ehrman) comparing the CMT with Holocaust denial (see my statement in the Mediation section above), but Sophia just doesn't seem to want to acknowledge it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

They are not scientists which is why they make invalid comparisons to methodologies they obviously don't understand. Wikipedia should not be about entrenching biased erroneous opinions. Not the only erroneous opinions on this page either. Sophia ♫ 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not truth is an important principle to consider here. "Christ myth theory" falls under the social sciences, which is why you would have scholars and not scientists covering it in their research. It is not our place to decide whether or not these scholars are right or wrong. For better or for worse, these are reliable publications (most were published by highly respectable publishing companies, which is about as reliable/authoritative as you get for Wikipedia). Sophia, can you produce any reliable source that presents the modern scholarly view of the Christ myth theory in another light? NW (Talk) 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NW the "Christ myth theory" by name in today's world is not part of the social sciences at all but rather part of popular atheism. It is non academic and the authors are not targeting an academic market. This is what ^^James^^ is saying below, as well as Sophia above. The proponents use the term, and their academic critics use the term but the current academic proponents do not. It is the same way that "talkie" wouldn't be used my a modern director to describe his latest movie. The people in popular atheism that are using the outdated term are doing it precisely to make a political point not an academic one, the same way that northern American adoption of "Yankee" was political. One of the things that I think is important to grasp in this debate is that this a hotly contested religious topic not a dry area of history.

If you want scholarly sources that indirectly point, there are hundreds. Just to pick an example Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History which traces the development of an early christianity that starts off fully a historical. jbolden1517^Talk 17:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus myth hypothesis" which became "Christ myth theory" came from me originally. It was meant to differentiate this article from an article which dealt with comparative mythography. That was perhaps an unfortunate mistake but I can authoritatively speak to my intent

Regardless of whether the theory is true, the most authoritative sources would be those written by proponents. They are the sources used by critics when discussing the theory. This article is not called Criticisms of the Christ myth theory. The sources listed above would be great in a section on how Christian theologians view the theory. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The most authoritative sources are the crackpot proponents while mainstream historians and biblical scholars are less so? You're kidding, right? Also, it is quite plain that you and Sophia want to turn this into a Christian vs. Atheist argument, but that just exposes your biases. As I (and others) have said before, there ARE non-Christian sources who compare the CMT to Holocaust denial (e.g., Bart Ehrman). See also FAQ #3 for the false claim of Christian POV pushing. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm not an atheist. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if you worship a head of lettuce, so spare me your righteous indignation. You don't have to be an atheist to have an anti-Christian bias, but that is how you present yourself (i.e., as an anti-Christian atheist or, at the very least, an anti-theist). In any case, comments from your side of this mediation/argument are flavored with anti-Christian biases. If I'm incorrect, then your side should refrain from using the words "Christian(s)", "theologian(s)", and "apologist(s)" when making your case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill, could you please tone down the hostility and personal accusations. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill, could I please echo James' call for civility? Thank you. But still, James, I am not sure how you can defend "the most authoritative sources would be those written by proponents". Sources are not authoritative based on the point of view of the author; otherwise, that would mean that something like Intelligent design would have Creationist writing as the primary sources of the article. Could you please explain further

There is no hostility on my part. The hostility comes from James' side, and it needs to stop. That's all I'm saying. In the interest of promoting civil discussion, however, I agree not to bring it up again unless Christian scholars are again slighted, at which point I'll appeal directly to NW without responding to James, or whomever. You have my word on it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article is first and foremost about the Christ myth theory, not about the critical or public response to the theory (whether negative or positive). The critics themselves need sources in order to criticize the theory, such as Bauer and Wells referenced in the quotes above. The critics obviously consider those sources 'authoritative' in the sense that they accurately represent the mythicist position. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to appear partisan in this mediation, so I shall refrain from replying to this one (though I encourage others to do so). I also note that my comment from 19:26, 21 March 2010 remains unresponded to. NW (Talk) 02:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand James' point. It doesn't make sense to me. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

^^James^^, as a fringe theory the CMT article is subject to the policies outlined at WP:FRINGE. As such, the writings of the fringe theorists themselves are not to be the article's go-to sources. Instead, "the best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse." Eugene (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recently published sources have been provided that link the christ myth to skinheads. Does that mean wikipedia should highlight that fact in the lede and categories? The only people making these claims use the credibility of scientific theories and testing methods to bolster the strength of their claims. It is the worst kind of appeal to authority as they lack the necessary tangible proof to do this on the arguments own terms. The only motives for going so far out on a limb, given the available data, must be for religious and not historical integrity reasons. The fact that this falls under the social science umbrella means we are acknowledging their lack of expertise in the very area (ie "real" science) that they are trying to align their theories with. None of this is meant to be anti christian, it just seems disreputable to claim more certainty than actually exists by appeals to authority and ridicule/discrediting of dissenting views. Add them to the article by all means - but define the subject by these claims, as you effectively do as they are so shocking to most people - NO! Sophia ♫ 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're seriously complaining about "appeals to authority", Sophia? An encyclopedia is one big appeal to authority! NuclearWarfare, how much more of this will we have to endure? I think the disagreement has been clearly exposed as worse than trivial. Eugene (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The appeal to authority I was referring to was the historical method being aligned to a proper rigorous scientific method by those stepping outside their field. Hopefully that was obvious to objective readers. Sophia ♫ 08:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sophia, can you or those on your side please respond to NW's question of 19:26, 21 March 2010? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please? There is a reason I wanted to start off the mediation with finding sources – it forces editors to look at the underlying facts rather than arguing on principle. As for the fact that you feel that we shouldn't include the views of experts in the field, well, I'm not sure that I'm not sure about that. Other FAs, such as W. S. Gilbert#Personality or Mary Wollstonecraft#Legacy, extensively cite the opinions of scholars in the field. NW (Talk) 23:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear here, Eugeneacurry is arguing that an article on the mythicist position should not include quotes from mythicists? ^^James^^ (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing no such thing. The article contains many quotations, in both the in-line text and the footnotes, from advocates of the theory. I'm simply pointing out that Wikipedia policy indicates that these sources shouldn't be given priority in determining the structure and tone of the article. The advocates' quotations appear in the "historical advocates" and "arguments" sections--precisely where they belong. Eugene (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My point has been completely missed - either that or I live in a parallel universe, where calling someone who thinks that the historical evidence for Jesus is less than watertight a "skinhead", is pushing an apologetic point too far. I have no idea what "sources" NW is asking for? Quotes that say the "skinhead" accusation is too extreme? The apologist books are fairly new in publishing terms and I have never seen these quotes pulled together anywhere before even on internet sites to require a serious rebuttal of the "skinhead" charge. Also the "christ" bit in the title does also cause problems, as Ttiotsw has argued, as the quotes need to be precisely pinned down to the "historical evidence" not the "miracles and resurrection" bit. This article is supposed to be about the history and current status of the theory (fringe), not about emotional reactions.

The "skinhead" charge looks extreme and is seen nowhere else so prominently in any other website on this subject - going back through the archives a lot of people have challenged it and said it looks over the top in various ways. On religious subjects you will always get a disparity in the numbers of sources from vested interests and others with no salary riding on their beliefs. If we can't argue this on principle (ie undue weight) it will be impossible to treat this subject academically (and not apologetically). Sophia ♫ 07:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sophia, I would like you to provide quotes by a scholar in the field saying something along the lines of "The CRM has some validity". These can be online sources if you wish, but printed sources from reputable publishers would be preferable if possible. NW (Talk) 21:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the ones in the article? And which CMT? Thomas L. Thompson in The Messiah Myth[9] page 3 says "Whether the gospels in fact are biographies - narratives about the life of a historical person - is doubtful." Michael Martin in "The Case Against Christianity" devotes a whole chapter to the historicity of Jesus and concludes "Well's argument against the historicity of Jesus is sound, and recent criticisms against his argument can be met." Whilst not in the field it shows that a respected scholar has evaluated the theory and found it convincing. Most arguments rest on the lack of evidence from independent sources until decades after the crucifixion (despite the wishy washy statement currently in the article lede that massively downplays this crucial fact). Whilst not a CMT advocate Steve Mason [10] in "Josephus and the New Testament" [11] states that other than Josephus, writing 60 years after the crucifixion, "...no other writers before 100 mention the Christians." (page 9). Allegro is already in the article, and apart from his more extreme interpretations, his books outlining the lack of data to base a historical jesus on, are well researched and argued. That is pretty much the limit of my quickly available library on the "non historical" side. On the "historical" side most arguments seem to come down to "the gospels are a good source" and the Testimonium Flavianum (written 60 years later) is pretty much authentic and provides outside confirmation that Jesus existed. I would be genuinely interested in reading a book that argued a better case than that but christian friends have never been able to provide one.

I am not here to defend the CMT. I only agreed to mediation to get the extreme apologist summary of this field relegated to the unfounded biased opinion that it is, and given the weight it deserves - not lede position and category. Sophia ♫ 10:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I do understand that your position is not that the CMT is correct Sophia, and that you wished to make sure that the article is appropriately balanced in how it describes the CMT, based on the opinions of the authors. The chapter by Michael Martin is very good; that is exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for when I asked you to provide sources. Do you think you could find other, similar sources by respected academics? The ones by proponents are fine, but multiple sources by outside scholars would definitely be the best for trying to establish a neutral point of view. NW (Talk) 12:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that Sophia finally got around to providing some ostensibly countering sources. The problem is that of the two relevant sources she provides, neither actually meets the challenge NuclearWarfare posed to her. She cites two authors Michael Martin and Thomas L. Thompson whom allegedly support the Christ myth theory.

Yet Martin isn't "a scholar in the field", as NW requested, since he's neither a biblical scholar nor a historian. But even if we ignored this, Martin admits that "Wells's interpretation may seem ad hoc and arbitrary." (The Case Against Christianity, p. 55) Also, Wells abandoned the CMT after the publication of Martin's book (a development the article notes). Given these three points I didn't expect Sophia to cite Martin as evidence.

I did, however, foresee that Sophia would try to cite Thomas L. Thompson. Unlike Martin, Thompson absolutely is "a scholar in the field" and even teaches biblical studies at a major university. The problem here, however, is that Thompson doesn't actually support the CMT as it is defined by the article (Sophia implies rather backhanedly that she understands this when she asks "And which CMT?"). Thompson is a well known biblical minimalist. And his book, The Messiah Myth, reflects that stance. But while Thompson certainly does believe that there is little, if any, historical foundation to the gospel narratives, he does not mean by that that a historical Jesus never existed. Instead, he draws a very clear distinction between these two views: "Even though a historical Jesus might be essential to the origins of Christianity, such a need is not obviously shared by the gospels." (The Messiah Myth, p. 8) As the CMT's FAQ (#1) makes clear through the use of a quote by Goguel, minimalism is not the Christ myth theory.

Try again Sophia. Eugene (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

: This btw is another example of how the straw man attack is used in these debates. The Christ myth theory is defined so narrowly (unlike the old consensus definition) so as to exclude all scholars as well most open proponents. A definition of Christ myth which excludes Doherty (the best known modern proponent) is simply silly. jbolden1517^Talk 23:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While Sophia is getting ganged up on in the above conversation I have to agree with her. A good analogy if political. The authors that Eugeneacurry wants to cite belong to essentially an opposing political party from the Christ mythers. They are biased and they are hostile. This would be like using Fox News, National Review, Redstate and Focus on the Family as a collection of sources on Barack Obama. Obviously that POV needs to represented in the article, but it should not be the only POV represented in the article. In general the Jesus quest work is done by Christians as part of the evolution of liberal Christianity (see Quest for the historical Jesus for a discussion). Christ myth was/is part of the evolution of atheism. Allowing Christian sources to be the sole source on Christ myth is no different than allowing Christian critiques of Islam to be the sole source on Islam or my FoxNews analogy. jbolden1517^Talk 16:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

jbolden1517, your constant insinuation that the critiques of the CMT are all of Christian origin became tedious a long time ago and is now simple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT As the article's FAQ (#3) clearly indicates, scholars of all theological persuasions reject the theory as nonsense. Even some of the allegedly "extreme" comparisons under consideration here come from a-theological sources: Bart Ehrman mentions the CMT and holocaust denial in the same breath and John Dominic Crossan puts it with moon-landing skepticism. Or, to quote an older non-Christian source: "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, vol. 7 (3rd ed.), London: Macmillan, 1919, p. 311

That FAQ is post rejection of the article. It represents your faction and is not accurate. Nothing else. It has no legitimacy. jbolden1517^Talk 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Christians are being slighted. Ho hum.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

jbolden 5 sources

I'm going to go back to the original question about 5 sources.

1. There are sources by the modern advocates.
2. There are sources by the 18th through early 20th century advocates.
3. The modern analysis gnosticism ends up discussing the theory indirectly. These are high quality academic sources.
4. There are mainstream books, classic wikipedia secondary sources that need to be mentioned.
5. There are sources by high quality authors well outside the field.

If I had to pick one of each type this would be tough but I think that was the original question. Each of these is just a sample, and even as I write I can think of good cases to pick others....

1. Earl Doherty, Jesus Puzzle.
2. Bruno Bauer Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs. (Criticism of the Gospels and History of their Origin.)
3. Birger A. Pearson Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Or Hans Jonas The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity.
4. Eugene lists above discuss this I have nothing too much to add.
5. The Hero with a Thousand Faces or Robert Graves The White Goddess

Hope this list helps as a starting point. jbolden1517^Talk 16:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it seems that the opposition can't help but misrepresent their sources. Just as Sophia advanced Thomas L. Thompson, jbolden1517 now puts Joseph Campbell (the author of The Hero with a Thousand Faces) forward as somehow supporting the Christ myth theory. Yet, just as with Sophia, jbolden1517 is playing more than just a little bit fast and loose here. Joseph Campbell absolutely did not support the Christ myth theory as defined by the article--which is to say that he absolutely did not deny the existence of a historical Jesus. In The Power of Myth Campbell discussed the historical Christ with Bill Moyers: "MOYERS: What do you think about the Savior Jesus? CAMPBELL: We just don't know very much about Jesus. All we know are four contradictory texts that purport to tell us what he said and did. MOYERS: Written many years after he lived. CAMPBELL: Yes, but in spite of this, I think we may know approximately what Jesus said. I think the sayings of Jesus are probably pretty close to the originals."

Likewise, Birger A. Pearson is not a CMT supporter: "The core sayings in the Gospel of Thomas probably come from a collection of Jesus's sayings dating to as early as the mid-first century, probably assembled in Jerusalem. (Of course, a number of these go back to the historical Jesus, that is, before AD 30.)" Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature, p. 267

As for Hans Jonas, I've seen absolutely no evidence to indicate he didn't believe that Jesus existed. On the contrary, he interacted with Jesus' ethic at various times in a way that implies he accepted his historicity. (See Benjamin Lazier's God Interrupted: Heresy and the European Imagination between the World Wars, pp. 44-45) Given that jbolden1517 has so clearly misrepresented Campbell and Pearson, I see no reason to trust his evaluation of Jonas on blind faith.

As has been mentioned countless time there are statements from Wells, Doherty, Price, etc.... which are similar. The version of the Christ myth which denies all historicity of all materials exists mainly in the opponent's minds. It is a straw man. And yes Pearson, etc... reject the strawman as much as the open proponents do. Yet another example of the systematic bias. jbolden1517^Talk 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This sort of dissimulation on the part of the opposition here has been a commonplace on the article's talk page. Please, NuclearWarfare, help us to put an end to it once and for all. Eugene (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think jbolden was just listing these books as examples of high-quality modern analysis gnosticism or other high quality authors. However, jbolden, I notice that in your statement above[12], you felt that "Proponents are given essentially no space...Comments by well known scholars that are opposed to its classification as a dead theory, even while disagreeing, aren't mentioned" Could you give some examples of those? NW (Talk) 18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

NW you are of course correct. One such scholar who disagrees with the theory yet doesn't consider the debate without merit is April de Conick of Rice University. I can point to lots of examples but this is a list of questions she raised 2 1/2 years ago [13]. Another is Avalos "Of course, there are scholars who are more openly secular humanist, and are willing to depart from the religionism that permeates historical Jesus studies. One example is Robert M. Price, a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, who provides a devastating critique of historical Jesus studies in Deconstructing Jesus — and we share many of his conclusions. Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle outlines a plausible theory for a completely mythical Jesus." (end of bible studies p 197). A third example is Kenneth Feder he wrote a blurb for Christ in Egypt by Acharya S, "The fact that these sources are mainstream, highly respected, or even seminal does not, of course, make them right about the origins of the Christ story. However, it does make them, and Murdock's thesis in which she incorporates their work, impossible to dismiss out of hand. Read her book. Criticize it if you believe it deserves criticism.... But to dismiss it or get apoplectic about her thesis simply because it shocks you is pointless." A fourth example would be Steven Davies, Professor of Religious Studies at Misericordia University who participated in online forums for years discussing the Christ myth and saying nice things about Doherty as a peer, "But it’s not that Earl advocates lunacy in a manner devoid of learning. He advocates a position that is well argued based on the evidence and even shows substantial knowledge of Greek. But it cannot be true, you say. Why not? Because it simply can’t be and we shouldn’t listen to what can’t be true. No. Not so quick." (many other similar quotes) jbolden1517^Talk 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, I have to disagree with your last post. Jbolden1517 has made it clear on the article's talk page that he believes modern scholars of Gnosticism such as Pearson and Jonas support the theory. At times, there have been sections in the article covering the work of these scholars. Other editors have argued that scholars of Gnosticism such as Elaine Pagels support the idea of a non-historical Jesus. This is a misrepresentation of these scholars' views, and it would be a very positive outcome of this mediation if we could put a stop to it. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jbolden writes above: "And yes Pearson, etc... reject the strawman as much as the open proponents do." Can you give us a reference where he does so? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this article should go back to FAC for some fresh input. We are covering much the same ground with the same old faces and hitting the same deadlocks. The article in it's current state needs more work than I have time for, and I don't have easy access to the sort of library sources I would like. The article has degenerated into a "for" and "against" format which looks more like a rebuttal of some narrow definition of the non historicity theory (the "affirmation of a historical jesus" section title is a hoot for NPOV). If it survives FAC with all it's "skinhead" lede material, and the "for" and "against" format then so be it and I will leave well alone. Sophia ♫ 01:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So far Sophia and her confederates have advanced the names of a number of scholars they claim are sympathetic to the Christ myth theory: Martin (non-specialist), Thompson (nope), Pearson (nope), Jonas (nope), Campbell (nope), Graves (non-specialist & non-academic even), DeConnick (already quoted in the article). More recently they've done a little better: Avalos, Feder, and Davies. I'm not at all familiar with Feder or Davies so I can't comment on them. I am, however, somewhat familiar with Hector Avalos; he's the notoriously anti-religious former fundamentalist Pentecostal turned fundamentalist atheist whom Helmut Koester, the Morison Research Professor of Divinity and Winn Research Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School, said possesses a "deep ignorance" of "Biblical scholarship". Ouch.

As for Sophia's suggestion that we drop the mediation and go to FAC, no. I asked for mediation to settle these issues prior to the FAC. Otherwise, if we enter FAC with supposed NPOV issues unresolved, such issues will derail the process. So let's be done with this; this is the venue for adjudicating these complaints. Eugene (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you learn to read. Sophia and her confederates advanced some of those names as people who were dealt with the theory indirectly. Others who dealt with it using the definition that actually exists in the literature. Your thinking something doesn't make it true. Your people could be dismissed just as easily. "Nope' doesn't cut it. jbolden1517^Talk 07:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NW has asked for more quotes of the Michael Martin type, and jbolden is trying to find some. I find the Thompson "write off" laughable as reading the "Messiah Myth" shows that he considers the historicity question unanswerable - that is not the same as saying he supports a historical jesus - "Whether the gospels in fact are biographies - narratives about the life of a historical person - is doubtful." The easy dismissal of such quotes shows that we are chasing the moon with the article in its current form and I suspect we all have different ideas of what this subject is actually about. In fact the section where it pulls together common ideas and then tears them down is probably a bad violation of synth, with its rehash of other articles it could also be accused of being a POV fork of Historicity of Jesus.

I deliberately only agreed to point 1 of mediation as I thought that was the only answerable one. I'm tired of the snide comments from other editors and the hostile environment with "sides". Can we please have a decision on whether it is valid to categorise and highlight in the lede the links with skinheads? Especially bearing in mind that most of the article is dealing with people who wrote before any of these events took place (well other than the flat earth bit). Sophia ♫ 08:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't imagine that jbolden1517 will be providing any more sources in the course of this mediation. So let's see what we have in terms of mainstream scholars who, while disagreeing with the CMT, nevertheless treat it as a respectable option.

It looks like we have Martin, Avalos, Feder, and Davies. Now, considering that Martin isn't a biblical scholar, or a historian, or an archeologist, or anything like that, I don't think that his views can be pitted meaningfully against the scorn of specialists.

So that leaves us with Avalos, Feder, and Davies.

But considering that Feder's non-snub was "published" as a customer review comment on Amazon, I'm not sure that it qualifies as a reliable source since WP:IRS states that, while blog articles may sometimes be used, "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." I think Feder's comment falls into this category.

So that really only leaves us with Avalos and Davies.

As I've said already, Avalos is poorly respected and widely seen as an ideologue in the NT scholarship community. But so what, his book's clearly a RS... so long as the opposition here is willing to grant that Licona's comment in The Case for the Real Jesus and his blog article are RSes.

Davies' comment was posted to a discussion forum. But, again, so what; let it stand as an RS... so long as the opposition is willing to let Ehrman's interview and Crossan's discussion forum comment stand as an RS too.

So, assuming the opposition here is willing to grant all this (thus settling issue #2 of this mediation, the one about RSes), the question then is: can the opinions of two measily sources be used to redefine an article's categorization when they speak against a massive bulk of their scholarly peers? (issues #1 & #3 of the mediation) I agree with Sophia, let's get this over with so we don't just keep going around in circles. Eugene (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Opposition" - that speaks volumes. Sophia ♫ 07:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Opposition" in the sense that you oppose the current situation with the article. I don't intend the term in a derogatory sense. Eugene (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is to establish that the theory is not generally thought of as akin to holocaust denial. BTW, It's not controversial to say that there is no contemporary evidence for Christs existence [14], it's only controversial to say that "therefore he didn't exist". Not much of a stretch. Here is a page [15] with sources that aren't Christian apologists like Mike Licona who claims to prove Christ physically died and came back to life three days later. No, I'm not saying that ALL of the sources in dispute are self-proclaimed christian apologists like Mike Licona, nor am I saying they are necessarily wrong. I'm just saying that extreme quotes should be vetted carefully and that blatantly partisan sources are questionable, especially when not backed up or reflected by the mainstream. Lets remove those and see what we are left with. ^^James^^ (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you then willing to discard the Avalos reference then as well? I'll agree to cutting Licona's references on the basis of partisanship so long as Avalos is likewise excluded from this consideration on the same basis. Do you agree? If so, great, that means that only one mainstream source remains that doesn't quite abomininate the CMT; one source can hardly undo the CMT's current categorization. On the other hand, if you don't agree, then stop riding this hobby horse about "blatantly partisan sources"; it's clear that you're only really opposed to one particular "party" here. And as I've said over and over and over, the article nowhere says that the CMT is "generally thought of as akin to holocaust denial"; it says that "some" scholars have made gone this far. (Can you say "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"?) And, as I've further said over and over, the pseudohistory category includes a lot of different theories, many of which aren't as disreputable as Holocaust denial. If it would help move things along, though, I'd be fine with moving the CMT from "pseudohistory" to the more general "pseudo-scholarship". Eugene (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to give a mini version of the article - it includes a prominent reference to holocaust denial. This gives it an importance to the subject that skews balance. Sophia ♫ 18:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some scholars have compared it to Holocaust denial. Why should that not be in the lead? Because it skews balance? How does it do that? The way that lead reads now, it is a perfect "mini version" of the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise lead rewordings

Currently, the fourth paragraph of the lead is "The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles,[3] biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it,[4] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship[5] and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism,[6] Holocaust denial[7] and moon landing skepticism.[8]" Perhaps another sentence along the lines of "However, other scholars such as A, B, and C, have stated that they..." could be added? Thoughts NW (Talk) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a basic decision on point 1? Sophia ♫ 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My role is to facilitate discussion on content, not to rule upon it. The decision will be whatever you all can come to an agreement on. NW (Talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a counter offer? I personally like the way the article currently reads; if this were Eugenipedia I'd keep the status quo. But it's not, so let's hammer out a compromise so we can submit the article for FAC without a couple of editors raising objections left and right. As it stands, the article refers to the denialist comparisons in the lead and is categorized as "pseudo-history". What if we changed that?

Sophia, you've objected that, while the CMT is fringe, it's isn't so crazy as to rub shoulders with Holocaust denial on the Pseudo-history cat page. Well, let's move it to the "pseudoscholarship" page. On that page its neighbors will include such relatively more illustrious denizens as "Shakespeare authorship question" and an old map often subject to goofy interpretations. It's still a low-rent neighborhood, but not so bad as pseudo-history.

And, as much as it galls m, I'd be willing remove the denialist comparisons from the lead. We would end the lead with the word "pseudo-scholarship" and just let readers penetrate as deeply into the body of the article as they choose.

Here's what I want in exchange: I want both ^^James^^ and Sophia to concede here that the sources used to cite the unflattering comparisons in the body of the article do indeed qualify as Reliable Sources as defined by WP:IRS and as modified by WP:FRINGE. I further want them to concede that, even without taking these comparisons into consideration, the "pseudoscholarship" categorization could stand on the strength of the scholarly concensus against the theory, etc.

Like I said, I'd rather not have to compromise, but I'm willing to if it helps the article's FA chances. So, again, here's the offer: (1) "pseudo-history" --> "pseudoscholarship", (2) cut comparisons from lead, (3) concede comparison sources are RS, (4) concede categorization is valid even without comparisons.

How about it? Eugene (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean moving the moon landing/holocaust denial comparisons into the body of the article, or removing them entirely? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would mean removing them from the lead. The Mark Allan Powell quotation in "Methodological concerns" would remain along with the sentence that preceeds it. I suppose that I should add that, as a part of this compromise, I expect Sophia & ^^James^^ to support the article's FAC. Eugene (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think removing the comparisons from the lead is a good idea. However, I think expecting (or demanding) that Sophia and James support the article's FAC is unreasonable; it's the kind of condition that is likely to provoke less cooperation, not more. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, let me say then that as a part of the compromise I want Sophia and ^^James^^ to agree to refrain from trashing the article on its FAC page. Eugene (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this potential compromise enforceable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I suppose that if Sophia and ^^James^^ agreed to the compromise--and then later went back on it--ArbCom might be able to do something. I don't think that that will be neccesary though; while AGF has become increasingly difficult with these editors, I'm not at the point of thinking they're just bold-faced liars. If Sophia and ^^James^^ explictly agree to abide by the compromise here, I'm willing to trust that they'll abide by it. Eugene (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of a funny sign I saw. "In God we trust; everyone else pays in cash".  :) Ok, then let's see what they have to say to your proposal. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When did this stop being about how to create a NPOV balanced article? Did I miss something? Sophia ♫ 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on Sophia, drop the posturing. We all want the article to be NPOV, we just (apparently) have different ideas about what that means in this instance. So, leaving aside the attempts to grab the moral high-ground, what do you think about the compromise: (1) "pseudo-history" --> "pseudoscholarship", (2) cut comparisons from lead, (3) concede comparison sources are RS, (4) concede categorization is valid even without comparisons? Eugene (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All I hear is the sound of crickets. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Qui tacet consentire videtur, NuclearWarfare? Eugene (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Translate please.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they are busy. Perhaps you could give them a little more time? NW (Talk) 22:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm busy. I've also been sick the last three days and leave for holidays tomorrow. I won't be around for the next week and a half or so. ^^James^^ (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me! You had time you tell us that you don't have time to answer my "yes" or "no" question? I feel like I'm stuck in a Kafka novel! Eugene (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes or no question?? ^^James^^ (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The compromise on the table, do you accept it? Yes or no? (To recap, the compromise involves (1) moving the CMT from the "pseudo-history" cat to the "pseudoscholarship" cat, (2) cutting the unflattering comparisons from the lead, (3) conceding that sources connected to the unflattering comparisons in the body are RS, and (4) conceeding that the new categorization is valid even without comparisons.) Eugene (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Um OK. No. ^^James^^ (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Given ^^James^^ manifest unreasonableness, I'm comfortable just ignoring him on this point if Sophia is willing to agree to the compromise. I'm confident that his tendentious complaints and his demonstrably untrue claims (see below) will not derail the FAC. Sophia has said that she "only agreed to mediation to get the extreme apologist summary of this field relegated to the unfounded biased opinion that it is, and given the weight it deserves - not lede position and category." Of her two concerns (comparisons in the lead and the categorization) I'm offering to yield on one and a half. That seems pretty reasonable to me. So Sophia, what do you say?

End of spring term, with 100+ students going into revision for AS/A2 exams does tend to distract one. The cat exchange sounds fair as they are scholars disagreeing with the scholastic methods used by some CMT's. Putting the extreme views in the appropriate section does acknowledge the viewpoint (however partisan) without giving them undue weight. Note - I have claimed the quotes used were biased but have never argued for their compete removal, or that they do not conform to RS. So yes, I'm happy with the compromise.

Will I support the FAC - no. But I have no further points to make, so will not be revisiting the issues under dispute here unless asked to explain what went on. I think the FAC will fail as there are too many sources and some of them are very poor. I notice "answering infidels" is there without a link to the infidels page itself (which I would be unhappy about adding as it is marginal for RS). There are also blog posts that are totally inappropriate and I would never try to add a "pro" blog quote. The "synth" bit at the end of the article and the "historicity" rerun will also raise eyebrows I suspect. Sophia ♫ 16:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm off for vacation today, so I won't be around for a while, but I do think many of the sources used in the comparison are not RS. Even if there are enough good sources to keep the comparison in the article, I'd like to see the poorer sources removed. I also don't agree with the 'pseudo' anything. Just because something is a minority view does not mean it's pseudo scholarship. The mainstream media does not treat the theory like pseudo scholarship. If the holocaust comparison is left in it should at least be noted that it comes from partisan sources. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Supporters

I think it would be a good idea to list supporters. Here are some for starters.

• Ellen Johnson (Madalyn Murray O'Hair's successor? So much for your protests against extreme partisanship. Eugene (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
• Barbara G. Walker (A knitting expert? How the hell does her opinion on this count for anything at all? Eugene (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

^^James^^ (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this is supposed to achieve. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as to why you summarily rejected Eugene's compromise above and then started this section. Could you explain a bit please? NW (Talk) 02:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He asked for either a 'yes' or a 'no' answer. I gave him one. Given those constraints, there's not much room for discussion. ^^James^^ (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're determined to be literal-minded, I suppose you're right; but nothing prevents you from explaining your "no". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to see who exactly are akin to holocaust deniers. Maybe the ridiculousness of the comparison will start to sink in. The other thing I would like to do is to scrutinize the sources for the holocaust comparison in detail. Lots of sources is nice. Lots of poor sources is not. Afterwards we can comb through what's left and apply WP:UNDUE. ^^James^^ (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think the comparison is ridiculous? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake concerning Shermer. Looks like he accepts the myth part, but assumes there was a real Jesus at the heart of it somewhere. So he's an euhemerist. ^^James^^ (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, do you mind not cluttering up my list? A snide comment after every name was not what I had in mind. ^^James^^ (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

Okay ^^James^^, despite my misgivings about your ability to understand sources (see the Shermer link), why, pray tell, do you think that the sources listed in footnote #138 and the Mark Allan Powell quote that follows it do not qualify as reliable sources according to the specific guidelines given at WP:IRS as qualified for articles like this by WP:FRINGE?

Just for the hell of it, here's a list of the sources used at this specific point with some information on the authors and so forth:

• Familiar Stranger: an Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), by Michael James McClymond. McClymond holds a PhD from the University of Chicago, is a professor at the University of St. Louis, and has published books through Oxford University Press, John Hopkins University Press, Eerdmans, Greenwood, and others. The book cited here is advertized as a text book by the publisher, was said to give a "comprehensive overview" by Publishers Weekly, was positively reviewed by Booklist, and appears on syllabi at such schools as Boston College, Westmont College, Queen's University, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the University of Aberdeen.

• Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) by Nicholas Perrin. Perrin holds a PhD from Marquette University, is a professor at Wheaton College (a regionally accredited PhD granting institution), has published works through Brill, Walter de Gruyter, Westminister John Knox, and others, and is a world renowned expert of the Gospel of Thomas. The book cited is also used as a text book at at least one seminary.

• Hellenism And Christianity, (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1930), by Edwyn Robert Bevan. Bevan was a professor at King's College at the University of London, a fellow of the British Academy, and he delivered the prestigious Gifford Lectures in 1933 and 1934.

• The Incarnation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) with the relevant contribution by N. T. Wright. Wright's credentials are almost too numerous to mention. Sufficed to say that Newsweek once referred to him as "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar". The book itself, given its publisher, shouldn't need much else to establish its reliability.

• The Infidel Guy Show interview of Bart Ehrman (2008). Ehrman holds a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary, an institution Richard Dawkins describes as being in the "world-beating class at the top" of school quality in The God Delusion. Ehrman is also the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has published through Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press, Harper-Collins and Eerdmans. Like Wright, his name is instantly recognizable within biblical scholarship. I grant that his comments were made in the midst of a fairly obscure podcast (The Infidel Guy Show), but WP:FRINGE allows scholarly responses to fringe theories to be drawn from "alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources". Far from being "off the cuff", as you've said before, Ehrman indicates in the interview that he's asked whether he believes in an historical Jesus often, and he's made similarly dismissive comments regarding the CMT in print venues as well.

• Michael R. Licona: I think he's okay, but given that he is likely the weakest link in the RS chain here, I'd be willing to drop him if it will get you to agree to the compromise. Think of this as a gesture of good faith; with jbolden1517 retired and Sophia on-board with Akhilleus, Bill, and me, I don't think your agreement is really necessary to declare consensus (4 vs. 1)--but it'd be nice if we all agreed.

• XTalk discussion with John Dominic Crossan (2000). Crossan holds a doctorate from Maynooth College, is the Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University, has published books through Harper-Collins, Fortress, Westminster John Knox, T & T Clark, and others, and regularly appears on PBS documentaries concerning Jesus. Again, the medium of the comments isn't normal for high-quality Wikipedia articles, but, as with Ehrman, Crossan's comments here are permissible despite their appearing in an "alternative venue" according to WP:FRINGE.

• "Mythicism and Paradigm Shifts", from Exploring Our Matrix (2010), by James F. McGrath. McGrath holds a PhD from the University of Durham (England), is the Clarence L. Goodwin Chair of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University, has published works through Cambridge University Press, University of Illinois Press, de Gruyter, T. & T. Clark, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Again, yes, his comments here are from a blog article, but not only does WP:FRINGE allow for this (as we've seen) but WP:IRS allows blog articles when "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As an expert on New Testament literature and history, McGrath qualifies.

And finally...

• Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), by Mark Allan Powell. Powell holds a PhD from the prestigious Union Theological Seminary, is the Robert and Phyllis Leatherman Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary (operated by the mainline-liberal ELCA), has published through Fortress, Eerdmans, Abingdon, Harper-Collins, Westminster John Knox, SPCK, and on and on, and he's the chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature’s Historical Jesus section. The book itself is a mainstay of the field, it seems. It was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly; it's been recommended as "key" by an Oxford Professor; and it appears on syllabi at a huge number of schools including Fuller Theological Seminary, Rhodes College, St. Olaf College, The University of Denver, and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

Bracketing the question of Licona for a moment (pending your possible acceptance of the compromise), the list is unimpeachable. Eugene (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

It looks like ^^James^^ didn't get a chance to respond to my last post before going on vacation. We should probably wait a day or two just in case he stops in at an internet cafe or something. But, in the event that ^^James^^ doesn't respond in the next few days, do you think that the disucussion here constitutes consensus, NW? Sophia has agreed, I obviously agree, and it seems like Bill the Cat and Akhilleus are willing to go along too (correct me if I'm wrong guys). So it seems that, even with ^^James^^ opposition, the final tally is 4 to 1. I'll even cut Licona's blog article and, if you demand it, his book reference too per ^^James^^ concerns if that will allow for a "ruling" of consensus regarding the proposed compromise. Eugene (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly call the above discussion a consensus to enact the compromise, although I would wait a couple of days just to make sure. And except for Christ_myth_theory#cite_note-117, the times you reference Licona seem to be redundant to other, more high-quality sources. I would say that it is your choice whether or not to remove them. I personally am not seeing a need to at this time, but perhaps others here have a different opinion? It is your time to chime in guys! NW (Talk) 14:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That particular reference is to a book co-written by Mike Licona and Gary Habermas. Considering Habermas' heavy-weight status in this field, I'd likely not cut that one; I was thinking more of Licona's blog article and possibly his comments in Strobel's book. Eugene (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ok with the compromise. However, please try not to delete any sources if at all possible. We are going to need it for the FAC process. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think this mediation has reached its end. There seems to be a basic agreement on how to proceed between all parties. Unless anyone has anything more to add, I will ask Xavexgoem to close this mediation within a day or so. NW (Talk) 20:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)