Talk:Christ myth theory

Piece of mythology

@UpdateNerd: your recent edit diff, edit-summary "ce: summarize before attributed quotation," changed

the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact". Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty,

into

the view that there was no historical Jesus, and that, in the words of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology". Alternatively, in the view of Earl Doherty—summarized by Bart Ehrman

References

The summary is questionable: "Jesus did not exist!" is a simplification, tthe battle-cry of the hardcore atheists, whereas the real topic is the conclusion from New Testamentical scholarship that the stories about Jesus are myths. "Myths" not as in nonsense and fantasies, but as in sacred stories which 'lived' by people, creating or invoking a sacred reality.
As for Ehrman, this is Ehrman's paraphrasing of Doherty, not exactly Doherty's words; and Ehrman is used because this is the 'definition' from a bona fide scholar, not from a CMT-theorists. Quotes are used when the topic is contentious, and summaries can be interpretations. So, rather the summary of a scholar than the interpretation of an editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan above. I especially wholeheartedly agree with his summary that "the real topic is the conclusion from New Testamentical scholarship that the stories about Jesus are myths." I would be much happier if this very accurate summary could be added into the lede, in this very plain language – I'm sure that such a step would go a long way to reducing the contentiousness of this topic. The current wording is the best we have managed to create, but it could easily be tweaked slightly to be even better and clearer.

However I am still puzzled as to why we need to use Ehrman to paraphrase the definition that Doherty wrote, rather than simply quoting Doherty's own statement. Surely quoting Doherty is more accurate than quoting a bona fide scholar who is paraphrasing Doherty – and paraphrasing somewhat inaccurately at that? How can the CMT-theorists not be the best source to define their very own CMT-theory? Doherty might not be an ideal source on New Testament scholarship, but surely he is a very good source for his own thoughts and conclusions? Wdford (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Doherty is one severable mythicists, though arguably one of the most relevant (and aimable); picking him to define the topic is somewhat arbitrary, also because different mythicists give somewhat different 'definitions'. Ehrman, in contrast, is a bonafide academic scholar, with a good standing, and on e of the most popular authors on Biblical scholarship. Doherty is given here because Ehrman parafrases him. Doherty is perfectly fine as a source for his own pov, but Ehrman is better for 'summarizing' the topic. That he does this by paraphrasing Doherty is a nod to the mythicists, so as not to solely rely on academic (Elite! Establishment! Trying to hide The Truth!) scholarship. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood. But then why use the wording "Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty"? Why not just say: "Alternately, as summarized by Bart Ehrman...?

Can we now tweak the lede to read: "In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical human figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea, but that many of the stories about this Jesus are myths. There is scholarly consensus only that Jesus was baptized and was crucified, but there is no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith"."

This will greatly clarify the core issue of contention. Wdford (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's reasoning makes sense. Since Doherty is only one of the mythicists, there are others, Ehrmans seems to generally summarize the views there. In terms of the proposal by Wdford on the rewording, it is contradictory since there is no consensus beyond that he existed and few other details among scholars. We already went through a detailed wording discussion in this talk page with numerous quotes from scholars saying such (including Ehrman admitting he cannot affirm or deny miracle events). The current wording was the consensus we reached here.

Plus Ehrman says the same thing on no consensus in DJE p. 268-269 "As I have repeatedly emphasized, different scholars come to radically different conclusions about how to understand the life of the historical Jesus. This is almost entirely because of the nature of our sources. We have seen that these sources are more than ample to establish that Jesus was a Jewish teacher of first-century Roman Palestine who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. As we will see in a moment, they are also ample for knowing a few more things about his life, as virtually every researcher agrees. But they are not ample when it comes to wanting to know more details, in greater depth, about what he actually said, did, and experienced." And in p.269-270 he admits, after listing general basic facts of Jesus "Nearly all critical scholars agree at least on those points about the historical Jesus. But there is obviously a lot more to say, and that is where scholarly disagreements loom large - disagreements not over whether Jesus existed but over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher he was." Ramos1990 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So we agree that it is inappropriate to mention paraphrasing Doherty in connection with Ehrman's generalized summary. Good.

Re the proposed rewording of paragraph 2, this proposed wording is not at all contradictory. It is the same wording as before, just clarified slightly to make clear that "virtually all scholars of antiquity" accept the historicity of a human Jesus but not the historicity of the supernatural divinity of the gospels. If you have reliable sources stating that "virtually all scholars accept the historicity of the supernatural divinity of the gospels", then please present them.

Ramos overlooks the fact that Ehrman stated that any historian who personally believes in miracles does so "not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer." It is obviously correct that Ehrman is "not able to affirm or deny the miracles that he is reported to have done." However it is obviously also correct that Ehrman is not able to affirm or deny the existence of the tooth fairy. If magic is real, then all magic stories are equally believable. We should not word the article such as to create the perception that the inability to conclusively prove the existence or otherwise of miracles (or of the tooth fairy) means that mainstream scholarship is evenly split on either subject – a fringe view is a fringe view.

Ramos overlooks the fact that Ehrman also stated, on the same page, that: "the chances of a miracle happening are, by definition, infinitesimally remote". We should not use wording that suggests that Ehrman believes the stories of Jesus' miracles.

I agree with Ehrman that we do not have enough reliable information to confidently state what Jesus actually said or did or experienced – although Ehrman holds the firm view that the sources which establish Jesus as a Jewish teacher are "more than ample". Ehrman clearly states that there are large scholarly disagreements over what kind of Jewish teacher and preacher Jesus was – but Ehrman nowhere states that virtually all scholars accept that Jesus was a divinity with superpowers.

There are many differing portraits of the historical Jesus, but only a small percentage of scholars support the theory that Jesus really was a divinity with superpowers. We should not word the article such as to create the perception that this is a mainstream theory among actual scholars. Wdford (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources support what you are saying here. The sources make clear distinctions on agreement about his existence, and then they say that there are disagreements on everything else - over and over. Many of these sources actually LIST the points of agreement too (Ehrman, Beibly and Eddy, Komoszewski, J. Ed; Bock, Dunn, Levine, etc) and nothing you have said is among those points. Also no source says that believing in miracles is a fringe position either. Not even Ehrman says that since he clearly says many historians believe they have happened. His words, not mine. He certainly does not say very few. Also belief in miracles is defended by numerous scholars with academic standing (Christians are "almost everywhere" in Historical Jesus studies according to Komoszewski, J. Ed; Bock p.53), whereas virtually no scholars defend mythicism. This is why the former is an active academic position, and the other is fringe nonsense. Half the time it looks like you are just arguing with Ehrman because he does not support your view. He does not deny miracles, he says historians cant do much with them. Agnosticism, not denialism. What you constantly propose is WP:OR or WP:SYN with your interpretation of Jesus studies when the sources interpret the their field differently. Putting words in the sources mouth when they do not claim what you are claiming is obviously a problem. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding So we agree that it is inappropriate to mention paraphrasing Doherty in connection with Ehrman's generalized summary. Good., that's a peculiar reading of Since Doherty is only one of the mythicists, there are others, Ehrmans seems to generally summarize the views there [...] The current wording was the consensus we reached here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Ramos1990: You have now made your POV blatantly clear – you believe in miracles, and you want to protect the ambiguous wording of the lede which allows readers to think that "virtually all scholars of antiquity" support this POV.

You are now sinking to false allegations that I seek to defend mythicism, and that I am arguing with Ehrman. In actual fact, as is clear from years of my editing, I fully support the main thrust of Ehrman's position – namely that a human Jesus existed, but not the supernatural "Christ of Faith". It is interesting that you are now trying to side-track this thread down a false straw-man alley. Of course, what Ehrman actually said was: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time". I agree with him – and thus with Schweitzer et al.

Of course, Ehrman also said about miracles, as I have already reported here, that: "the chances of a miracle happening are, by definition, infinitesimally remote", and that any historian who personally believes in miracles does so "not in the capacity of the historian, but in the capacity of the believer." You consistently avoid acknowledging these important comments, and instead cherry-pick relentlessly to support your POV.

You also refer to the "18 points of agreement" by Komoszewski etc. Nowhere does this "list" mention that scholars agree that the alleged miracles were real. Instead, they use wording like "He was reputed to be a wonder worker who cast out demons and healed people", and also "He was believed by his disciples to have appeared to them shortly after his death, in experiences that convinced them that God had raised him from the dead." Not the same thing at all.

You also refer to Dunn. What Dunn actually said was: "the historical Jesus is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data supplied by the Synoptic tradition, not "Jesus back then", (the Jesus of Nazareth who walked the hills of Galilee), "and not a figure in history whom we can realistically use to critique the portrayal of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition". This does not in any way support your contention either.

You also refer to Levine, but she also does not say that "virtually all scholars of antiquity" support the historicity of miracles. She actually states: "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars". The picture of Jesus as the Jewish messiah is thus clearly a minority view. This does not in any way support your contention either.

You also refer to Beilby & Eddy. When discussing the historical assessment of the miracles tradition, Beilby & Eddy divide scholars into groups which they label as "some", "others" and "still others", with the final category being those who "either remain open to, or even explicitly defend, the historicity of miracles within the Jesus tradition." No mention is made of the percentages involved, and certainly no suggestion is made that "virtually all scholars of antiquity" support the historicity of miracles.

The current wording of the lede is thus misleading, and you are fighting hard to protect the ambiguity. Why is that?

@ Joshua Jonathan: Your own words were "there are others, Ehrman seems to generally summarize the views there". I agree with that. So why are you clinging to the Doherty label – especially since it is actually a poor summary of Doherty? I'm also not sure about your remark that this is a "nod to the mythicists" - when you are reporting about what the mythicists write, who else could you refer to?

Per your opening post, "the real topic is the conclusion from New Testamentical scholarship that the stories about Jesus are myths." I fully agree with you, as do Ehrman and Schweitzer and many more. So why are you now clinging to ambiguous wording that suggest the mainstream position might actually be the complete opposite?

What objection do you have to making minor adjustments to the wording to read: "In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical human figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea, but that many of the stories about this Jesus are myths. There is scholarly consensus only that Jesus was baptized and was crucified, but there is no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith"." Wdford (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Wford, not even sure how your thinking works. Nowhere in the lead are miracles mentioned. Only you keep on thinking miracles are relevant to the discussion. They are not. This article is about Jesus' non-existence theories, not about the portraits of the historical Jesus (was he a cynic, prophet, messiah, etc). The current wording is what multiple editors agreed upon and already addresses the issue pretty clearly and neutrally: "Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith"." None of the quotes you brought up above mention let alone support your claim. Instead, the quotes you brought up all support the wording we all agreed upon - there is no consensus, no single picture of Jesus has convinced all or even most scholars, etc. You can quibble about that but it is irrelevant to the non-existence theories or the consensus debunking of those theories. Scholars are unified against non-existence theories. That is the main relevant point for this article. Most of the stuff you say is WP:SYN. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have explained at length exactly how my thinking works, but still you pretend to "not understand". So let me explain again.

My specific concern is that the lede currently contains the wording: "the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea". I fully agree with this position, provided the Jesus in question is understood to be a normal non-supernatural human. However this careful wording allows the reader to assume that the Jesus in question was indeed the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels, and that "the mainstream scholarly consensus" is thus affirming the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels. This is seriously misleading.

It is correct that there is no single "portrait" of Jesus that is agreed upon by a majority of scholars, however the vast majority of different portraits agree that the historical Jesus was a normal human being, rather than a supernatural miracle worker. All I want is for the lede to be slightly reworded to make this clear, and to clarify the ambiguity that has been protected so fiercely for so long. There are some scholars who do believe that the historical Jesus was a supernatural miracle worker, but that is a minority portrait.

Your accusations about WP:SYN are inappropriate – that is exactly why I cited all the sources, which you are now attempting to sidestep. The quotes I brought up above were actually sources cited by you to support your POV, and I was simply pointing out that none of these sources actually support the position that the supernatural miracle worker of the gospels is the mainstream scholarly consensus.

This critical point continues to be suppressed – that many "mythicists" happily accept some form of historical human Jesus, but reject the supernatural stories of the gospels. Even mainstream scholars like Ehrman clearly state that: "The Jesus proclaimed by preachers and theologians today had no existence. That particular Jesus is (or those particular Jesuses are) a myth. But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time". These many scholars contradict your position that the supernatural miracle-worker was an historical figure. The lede should be less ambiguous, and should state clearly that the mainstream scholarly position is that the historical Jesus existed as a normal human being, and was NOT the supernatural figure of the gospels – even if a minority do still cling to that position. This would require only small modifications.

PS: You are wrong to say that "the main relevant point for this article" is that "scholars are unified against non-existence theories." The main point of this article is to accurately describe the Christ Myth Theory. We certainly MUST mention that most scholars do not support the non-existence theory, but this is NOT "the main relevant point for this article". You reveal your POV yet again. Wdford (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"There are some scholars who do believe that the historical Jesus was a supernatural miracle worker" What are these "scholars" smoking, and have they passed a drug test? Who takes parapsychology seriously? Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Many scholars are religious people, and religion is the opium of the masses. More seriously, some senior scholars of New Testament studies are simultaneously also senior Christian clergy. They will obviously need to synchronize their "scholarly conclusions" with their "clerical beliefs", or risk losing their clerical positions. Wdford (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

[T]he majority of biblical historians in academia are employed by religiously affiliated institutions. This fact alone explains much of the resistance to Jesus Myth theory even among scholars who personally identify as secular. Furthermore, of those schools, we can quantify that at least 41% (if not 100%) require their instructors and staff to publicly reject Jesus Myth or they will not have a career at that institute of higher learning. So the question shouldn’t be: “How many historians reject mythicism?” but “How many historians are contractually obliged to publicly reject mythicism?”

---

Fitzgerald 2017, p. 62, §. Myths of Mythicism §. Bias Cut". ISBN 978-1-5428-5888-5

Cf. "New Testament Scholarship Has a MAJOR Issue". YouTube. @time 00:00:23 WWW: https: //youtu.be/X5y-RavZ8VA?t=23

I would just like to add support to the points made by Wdford above. Unless someone here can provide a convincing reason why we can't make the lede less ambiguious in the manner he suggests, I'm going to take it upon myself to update it. Note: No convincing reasons have been made thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.34.128.132 (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOCONSENSUS. Nothing was agreed upon by the editors on any proposal to change the current wording, which is already WP:NPOV. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarly consensus?

I wonder why the "mainstream scholarly consensus" isn't questioned or deconstructed anywhere here or in any of the articles concerning historicity of Jesus. Trying to answer the question "what is indicated as mainstream?" in the above statement I found only theologians and Bible scholars. Actually none of the articles concerning the historicity of Jesus lists or merely defines the extent of this "mainstream consensus", which AFAICT excludes historians without theological, religious studies or biblical studies associations. 178.182.201.166 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Becasue we do not do that, we only repeat what RS say. So we need RS addressing this point. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Because this topic is within the scope of the academic fields of theology and Biblical studies, and so theologians and Bible scholars are the most relevant academic sources on this topic. The fact that they are theologians and Bible scholars doesn't mean anything. Many academics with an interest in studying religion and the Bible do not literally believe everything in the the Bible. Helioz9 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Simply untrue -you'd have a hard time finding any scholar of the ancient world or 1st Century period who actually believes Jesus didn't exist. And not all NT and Jesus scholars are Christians -some are agnostics, others are Muslims or Jews. The one thing they all have in common, if nothing else, is that they all agree that the gospels were based on memories of an actual individual who actually lived and had an actual ministry on planet earth. And they base this conclusion on the simple fact that not one ancient source, whether Christian (Paul), Jewish (Josephus) or Roman (Tacitus), writes about Jesus as being anything other than an actual man. Even the Gnostics believed he had an earthly presence in direct contradiction to mythicist claims.

So this issue is raised frequently on here and every time it's the same response: the consensus here is as robust as you're ever going to get a consensus in a field of ancient history. And unless someone unearths a source that predates the earliest sources on Jesus and claims Jesus was not actually a real man, then this is what it is. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. With the nuance that, while there most likely existed a man Jesus, we know close to nothing about him as a historical person; what we know is what people believed about him, and the way Jesus Christ is presented in letters and gospel stories. And those narratives you can savely call "mythology." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed so. Well summarized. And if this wording as per Joshua Jonathan above was included in the lede of the article, a huge amount of dispute would evaporate. So can we please just add to the lede the point that "we know close to nothing about him as a historical person; what we know is what people believed about him, and the way Jesus Christ is presented in letters and gospel stories. And those narratives you can safely call mythology." Wdford (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Much closer, thank you JJ. :) Wdford (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1

I don't understand this: "The consensus is as robust as you're ever going to get [...]". So you're saying the consensus that a historical Jesus has ever existed based on actual evidence is as strong as let's say the existence of Louis XIV? The existence of a historical Jesus is as much a claim or theory as the theory that he didn't exist, since we're far from a definite proof. Only arguments can be made about what is more probable.

Why would you need an earlier source claiming that Jesus never existed? If Jesus as a historical person never existed it makes sense that people didn't write about him apart from christian second hand information. Paul's letters are the first mention of Jesus about 50 AD. If the story of Jesus is only invented with this first mention of course you will never find earlier sources that deny an existance of a historical Jesus. 2003:EC:6F4C:C400:EECC:E165:C66A:5907 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the argument was that it's as robust a consensus as you're going to get in a field of ancient history, where the methods for assessing the historical nature of claims (including the existence of individuals) are quite different than later periods of history.

Why would you need an early source talking about Jesus as a non-human, unearthly being you ask? Because the belief that he never existed is based on nothing. No author, Christian or otherwise, wrote about Jesus as a mythical being -they wrote about a flesh-and-blood man, who had an earthly ministry, human parents and a family. If your argument is that he was invented and then a belief emerged later on that he actually existed, you have to demonstrate that evolution by reference to evidence and not just assert it because it "sounds" right to you (if you were familiar with the source material, it wouldn't sound right at all).

I also disagree with @Joshua Jonathan: claiming that we "know next to nothing about Jesus" and that what we do know can safely be called "mythology". The gospel narratives fall under a genre of ancient writing that incorporates history, biography, mythology and spirituality, philosophy and politics. To single out "mythology" as a general description is misleading to readers and a misuse of the term.

More confusion -this notion that we "don't know much about Jesus". Here's a sample of details about Jesus that most scholars believe we can state with confidence: 1. He existed; 2. He was from Nazareth; 3. He was baptized by John the Baptist; 4. He preached, had a ministry and generated a following; 5. He upset the authorities and was crucified by the Romans; 6. After his crucifixion some of his followers came to believe he was the risen messiah (although the belief in a physical, bodily resurrection seems to have evolved later on). We also have a rough approximation of when this all occurred (ie the reign of Tiberius).

Is this consistent with the idea that we "can't say much about Jesus"? People who think like this tend to make naive comparisons between Jesus and important people who had high social standing -famous philosophers and generals, Caesars and Kings (eg "Louis XIV"). In reality, the historical Jesus (not the Jesus of Christianity) was a nobody while he was alive and shouldn't have had anything written about him at all. He was an illiterate peasant from a backwater of Galilee, and one of thousands of 1st Century preachers in that sect of apocalyptic Judaism who claimed to be the Messiah and preached about the "End Times". When historians assess these sorts of questions, they don't compare illiterate peasants to kings and generals (which would be a lot like comparing a lower-middle class electrician from Nebraska to the President of the United States, expecting there to be the same amount of written materials) -they compare people like Jesus to analogous figures from his time. And when they do that they find that there are more references to Jesus than any of his contemporaries, and that we can say far more about Jesus than any other 1st Century messianic preacher from his region.

I haven't read the current state of this article, but if even half of what's been written in this talk appears there, it's significantly misleading to readers about the nature of ancient historical research and how scholars of the ancient world think about these problems. Please stick to what's written in reliable, scholarly sources, and not the fringe little side-issue of Jesus "mythicism". Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@178.182.201.166 Yeah, this and every article on jesus is trash, they are all baked-in with a belief that there is a "consensus" that he existed and yet all of the citations are repetitions of the same old citations. They are all very clearly biased, and it's lunacy that multiple of them call "the myth of jesus" a *fringe theory* when there is literally zero actual evidence for his existence--which is the literal, constant basis of how any historiographer determines the difference between legendary and historical. I.e., any half decent historiographer would classify him as legendary by the utter lack of evidence, and thus to call this concept fringe is absolutely simple bias. 2600:1700:66D0:2540:6D44:CD52:C826:A23C (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There is actually lots and lots of evidence of his existence. I personally don't find any of it particularly compelling, but it is evidence nonetheless. Simply because a datum is questioned does not render it "not evidence." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"virtually all" in LEDE

Do we have WP:RS that make this statement, or are editors counting a number of sources and then WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to make this statement in the WP:LEDE? I did see the WP:CITEBUNDLE and wondering if there is anything in the citebundle that actually contains an analysis to support this statement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes the quotes are there in the "cite bundle" and other cites there. This has been addressed multiple times. For example, Gullotta, Grant, Ehrman, and mythcists like Lataster and Price verify this. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of any credible scholar of the ancient world, 1st Century, New Testament and related fields who wastes time "debating" the fringe little side-issue of whether or not Jesus existed. The overwhelming consensus is that he did exist, and the more correct wording would be to write "virtually none" dispute this. I think we need to have a little talk about what "virtually all" really means, because I can compile a list of scholars who've disputed this consensus, and "virtually none" of them are credible experts who publish professional research in this field. You can count on one hand the number of mythicist "scholars" who even have academic training in a relevant subject. The go-to man for mythicists seems to be an unemployed blogger named Richard Carrier, whose one and only peer-reviewed publication "On the Historicity of Jesus" (well, sort of "peer reviewed") went unnoticed and generated one lonely review from one of his minions. That tells you all you need to know about the scholarly validity of mythicism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Living Proponents And Aron Ra

Hello. I was encouraged to take my issue here to discuss it. I don’t think Aron Ra should be listed as a Living Proponent of the theory. All the other modern proponents listed are scholars (mostly historians) with advanced degrees who have published books, articles, and other research on the subject matter. Aron Ra is a YouTuber of middling size.

I initially replaced him with Thomas Brodie, a living scholar and (relatively) famous proponent of the Christ Myth Theory but this was reverted. I’d like to officially put forward the idea that this section should be reserved for those who have published research in support of the theory, and not lay persons who happen to agree with the theory or find it convincing.

We can fill the table entirely with tons of YouTube atheists who find the theory convincing. But I don’t think that’s helpful. Nor do I think it makes much sense to include just one random YouTuber among a list of primarily scholars. Jaredcruz899 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In particular, I’d probably recommend replacing him with Earl Doherty. Someone who may only have an undergraduate degree (at least in a related field, unlike Aron Ra) but who has at least published notable work advocating for the theory, with his work being responded to by scholars like Bart Ehrman in his, Did Jesus Exist. Jaredcruz899 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the original person who added Aron Ra said to “look at his wiki page” for the fact that he’s a “proponent of the Christ Myth Theory” but that appears no where on his own wiki page, and seems to have been removed from it months ago. Jaredcruz899 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Lede is too long

@Joshua Jonathan: WP:Lede "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead."

Lede is currently 6 paragraphs.

"the lead section is an introduction ... and a summary of its most important contents."

Lede contains: "... in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty"; Isn't this detail that should be further down in the article?

The lead section should be "well-composed".
It currently introduces the concept in the first paragraph,
then debunks it ("In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that there was a historical Jesus ... denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles") in the 2nd paragraph,
then gives some history ("Mythicism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, ...") in the 3rd,
then gives its arguments ("Proponents broadly argue ...)
then gives a different summary of arguments ("Most mythicists employ a threefold argument ... ) in the 4th paragraph
then in the 5th paragraph goes back to debunking ("Mythicism is rejected as a fringe theory ...")
and finally in the 6th goes back to history ("With the rise of the internet ...")

This is good organization?

I attempted to to trim and reorganzie the lede and was reverted by Joshua Jonathan, who told me "Please discuss at talk". -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog: thank you for opening a talkpage-thread. Regarding your edits diff:

• "as a rule of thumb" - but not always;
• The lead does summarize the most important points;
• We give two, slightly different definitions, because there is not a single, tightly-knit definition; the second definition is a definition give by one of the most prominent proponents, as cited by one of the best-known Biblical scholars;
• I agree with you that the scholarly rejection of the CMT should be at the end of the lead - as it is. The second paragraph introduces the conclusion of the socalled quests for the historical Jesus, plus the remark "in contrast." But the clear rejection comes at the end. The sentence " however even before this, denial was never persuasive in or out of academic circles" was overdone, I think; I've just removed it;
• Paragraph 4 and 5 may be repetitive indeed; good point;
• I've added "While rejected by mainstream scholarship" to the last paragraph, as "popular reception" is a separate topic in the body.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)