Talk:Jesus in comparative mythology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Older

OK starting this new page off. For anyone lurking this conversation is likely to start with bouncing back and forth with Talk:Jesus Christ as myth at least for the time being. jbolden1517^Talk 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, please note that this page is the result of a split, and its deeper edit history is found (currently) at Jesus Christ as myth. dab (𒁳) 07:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, it appears these articles have been merged, as "Jesus Christ in comparative mythology" and "Jesus Christ as myth" both redirect to the same article. This is discussed below, but should be noted here. Davigoli (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Status of France and Grant

OK I guess we are having a factual issue. Why do you consider those books to be scholarship rather than apologetics? jbolden1517^Talk 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're setting up a false dichotomy. In ordinary Christian usage, apologetics refers to people of religious (esp. Christian) beliefs, defending those beliefs. (I am aware that various non-Christians sometimes use it with different connotations, e.g. to denigrate the writers of them, occasionally to the extreme of "they're just apologists, and thus biased, therefore unworthy of us bothering to engage with their arguments"). Scholars have a habit of defending their own beliefs. Religious scholarship is therefore very frequently "apologetics", simply because scholars are defending beliefs. What I'm taking issue with there isn't the suggestion that the writings are apologetics. By ordinary Christian definition, the question of whether they are "apologetics" or not, is completely irrelevent (and indeed the word has too wide a semantic range to probably be helpful without further explanation, TBH.)

My main objection with that little section isn't so much that it doesn't cite the writers as being scholars, it's that it states that these arguments are "rejected by scholars" - without any citation, and indeed contrary to every instinct I have, as someone who had studied the history of the bible for three years under some very fine scholars (Christian or not).

As for why I think they are scholars - well, basically, because they are written by scholars in fields relating to where the points come up. Grant is cited for a point relating to ancient history, where he was a well known scholar (albeit in classics, which isn't always quite the same field, although they're closely related). RT France, on the other hand, has taught at theological college - including being principle of Wycliffe Hall, which was given the very unusual honour of being made a private college of Oxford University very shortly after he resigned - if his reign was even mildly unscholarly, that would never have happened. 82.36.124.28 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, accidentally signed out without realising it. TJ 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, a little look at R. T. France's wikipedia page shows that he was a lecturer in related subjects at secular universitys, which I suppose demonstrates that he's 'really' scholarly if one is going to argue that places like Wycliffe were unscholarly back then. TJ 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jbolden,

this smacks a bit of silencing opposing views by terming them unscholarly. Grant is nothing close to an apologists (which doesn't exclude him being a scholar) but a very mainstream scholar on antiquity. The qualifier apologist wouldn't be relevant anyway, if he's a scholar. If we followed the road indicated above we would also have to remove any supporting views because they are quacks, leaving behind an empty article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Post merge flag

So how does this differ from the Christian Mythology article? If it does - why? Looks to me that they cover the same ground. Sophia 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is already taking place at Talk:Jesus-myth hypothesis#Post move discussion jbolden1517^Talk 13:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

....but needed to be flagged here as we now have two articles. Sophia 14:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh, this is a sub-topic of Christian mythology and clearly marked as such. Just as Jesus is a sub-topic of Christianity. Are you going to merge Jesus into Christianity now?

It is in fact an excellent reason to keep it as a separate sub-article that it treats material pertinent to both Christian mythology and Jesus-myth hypothesis. And both these article link here openly by {{main}}. The discussion on the split should really be over here.

Could you not tell us whatever it is that you think is "pov" about this article here? Is it not pious enough? Are you irked that it cites Christian authors that embrace Jesus as myth alongside skeptics that argue that "myth" means "fake"? I am sorry, but WP:NPOV means that we want a balanced presentation of opinions, which is precisely what we are doing here, and which is what Jesus-myth consistently failed to do, instead repeating the conflation of the topics of mythography and historicity. For the purposes of this article, it is completely irrelevant whether there ever was some carpenter-rabbi called Yeshua, for the simple reason that this isn't the historical Jesus article, but the one treating mythological aspects of Jesus Christ. Now what part of this is so difficult to follow, or biased. And in what way is it biased? I honestly don't know if the alleged bias is supposed to be pro-Christian or anti-Christian, simply because I fail to see any bias here. As for allegations of OR, I likewise see no problematic statements here, at all. Use {{fact}} to mark claims that are unattributed, and we'll either attribute them or remove them. If you could explain what you are so upset about, maybe I could see your point and there could be constructive and amicable debate. As long as you just keep tagging things and shouting "POV, OR", there will be no understanding here. I wholehearteldy subscribe to both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, but merely repeating the acronyms at me is not helpful.dab (𒁳) 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OR

I have placed an Original research tag. My reasoning for placing it may be seen in the AfD discussion. In short, this article presents a thesis of its own, based on parallels the writers of this article, WP users, see in other sources. That's quintessential OR. Please endeavor to repair the situation rather than remove the notice, which is rightfully placed. ... Kenosis 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Justin Martyr
• Merlin Stone
• C. S. Lewis
• Acharya S
• Frank Viola
• Philippe Walter
• Elaine Pagels
• Birger Pearson

What exactly is this article saying that 200 authors haven't said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbolden1517 (talk • contribs)

Very quickly for the moment, given the level of kneejerk controversy that attends topics like this one, it will be necessary to provide citations for the assertions that these myths are parallel. I know they're out there. Once that is done, the superfluous material can be weeded out, and perhaps, just perhaps, one ends up with an article about parallel myths, which can then be appropriately retitled so it more accurately represents the topic actually dealt with, which presently is a series of analogous or parallel myths to such myths as virgin birth, son of God, resurrection, miraculous cures, etc. Note carefully that I'm not making an assertion whether these primarily scriptural stories are accurate or not. But I am making an assertion that if there are asserted to be parallel myths, the assertions that they are parallel or closely analogous, or identical, or whatever, need to be cited, and not just arrived at by the WP writers because it seems obvious. Believe it or not, it's an important WP principle. So if this material is useful and properly WP:A'd, I'm certain there is a place for it in some appropriate article on WP. ... Kenosis 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree this article doesn't cite each individual parallelism. citation needed tags could be put in a lot of places. But that's different than a claim of OR, which is what is being disputed. That's also different than a claim of a POV fork. Incidentally, that content wasn't written by me (almost none of it). My one section has an RS party making the claims so it is self citing. jbolden1517^Talk 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis is spot on. Just read "The myth" section. It begins "Jesus is..." no refs no statements attributing this view to any writer. And the next section "Predecessors and parallels" - same again - grand claims but with no authorship to back them up. The "Interpretations" section..... need I go on? Without refs and statements attributed to particular authors this is one big pot of OR. I know some of the content is inherited but what is going on now is making it far far worse and will take ages to sort out. The OR flag at least warns the reader to beware. Sophia 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you know this isn't my content but.... Everything I read in "The myth" seems like right out of the NT. Are you asking for bible refs (I think that is different than what Kenosis is asking for). Pick a sentence that you think is controversial lets work an example. jbolden1517^Talk 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And the bible is all true so we don't need to attribute it? Everyone in the world, no matter what their religion will know these statements are authentic accepted universal facts as they have the bible memorised? I haven't got time right now but you need to do some serious reading before you tamper anymore with this content. Not necessarily bcause it is good but because you are currently taking it further down. Sophia 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It says according to the New Testament as part of the title. We can add citations to the specific biblical passages, but you know very well this this is simply a summary of the standard mythos of Jesus according to traditional Christianity. No-one is sayinmg it is true - it is the story according to the NT. Paul B 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think the bible is a reasonable prereq for comparative studies. In math article on college topics we assume junior high school algebra. And please start discussing in good faith I neither said nor implied memorized. jbolden1517^Talk 18:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, argumentum ad absurbum.

Stop with the AGF bullslop. You blew that with your revert comment. •Jim62sch• 21:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

jbolden - can't you see the problems with just assuming that people will know this stuff is taken pretty much word for word from the bible? Sophia 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see what you mean. We are discussing the gospel narrative. "Jesus is..." is ostensiblly the "in-universe" account of a myth. If you cannot follow that, you have a lot of cleanup work ahead of you. Maybe begin with Sarruma, which has

Sarruma is a Hurrian god whose name means "king of the mountains". He is a son of the weather-god Teshub and the goddess Hebat.

then proceed to Ishtar, which has

Ishtar is a mother goddess, fertility goddess, the goddess of spring, a storm goddess, a warrior goddess and goddess of war, a goddess of the hunt, a goddess of love, goddess of marriage and childbirth, and a goddess of fate.

zomg POV attack! Wikipedia is being undermined by Bronze Age religionists who try to represent their heathen beliefs as fact. dab (𒁳) 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored the OR tag (and do NOT expect to see it removed), I also added a sources tag to the Mythemes of the Biblical account section. (see below on that little misuse of the word) •Jim62sch• 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mythemes of the Biblical account

Do you guys actually know what a mytheme is? •Jim62sch• 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was a musical version of myspace. Sophia 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the combination of "myth" and "theme". Homestarmy 19:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mytheme -- essential kernel of a myth. The kind of sharing in this article, the kind Strauss specific mentioned when he coined the word jbolden1517^Talk 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it is "an element of myth regarded as an element of stucture". Sharing has nothing to do with it though -- no matter what Wikipedia says. Remember, we don't cite Wikipedia to support Wikipedia articles. •Jim62sch• 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed

Since many of the items listed as mythemes are found in only one or two accounts (for example, a full-blown nativity story only occurs in one gospel), you must source the various "mythemes". •Jim62sch• 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with you? It appears you are just sulking at this point. If you could tell us what statement you find questionable like a grown-up, we could have an intelligent debate. If you just gesture at the article as a whole, including perfeclty straightforward statements like "in the gospel narrative, Jesus is called 'Son of Man'", you are quite obviously not looking for constructive debate. Seriously, what do you dispute? Do you want to see a source that Jesus is called "Son of Man" in the gospel? Care to click on Son of Man? You want to see a source proving that the gospel describes a crucifixion? Care to click on crucifixion? Or do you just want to bicker until we give up in disgust? You are free to state that the nativity is described in Luke. But you cannot be serious slapping {{OR}} on the article because it claims that the gospel describes the nativity, while you prefer to see that it is Luke in particular. Just fix it, for crying out loud. This is a short summary. If you add a bunch of bible verses to each statement, it will become unreadable. Show some common sense. I will not be able to AGF any further if you insist on crying "OR" for a paragraph where each and every statement is linked to a fully referenced sub-article. dab (𒁳) 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. The last sentence of the opening paragraph of this article states, "The relevance of myth to the study of Jesus and the Gospels is generally rejected by modern scholarship.[1]" The source given, which is only one dictionary entry by the author of The Evidence for Jesus does not adequately support the statement. In other words, one source written by someone who argues for the existence of Jesus cannot be used to credibly and unbiasedly make the claim that the topic's relevance is "generally rejected by modern scholarship." For the sake of accuracy, I think a Wikipedia editor should delete the sentence because there are many respected and more objective scholars who fully support the notion that Jesus himself could have been a mythological figure. Whether or not that is true, many scholars do find the topic relevant to the study of Jesus and the Gospel. If I'm misunderstanding something, please let me know. Otherwise, an editor might want to change this as soon as possible. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.178.191 (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are not "many respected and more objective scholars who fully support the notion that Jesus himself could have been a mythological figure". Read the article on the Christ myth theory. If you would like, I can import some of the citations used in that article to further buttress Dunn's quotation. Eugene (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how the well respected scholar James D.G. Dunn cannot be quoted from the academic encyclopaedia Dictionary of Jesus and Gospel because he has a book called The Evidence for Jesus? And trust me, there are not any "more objcetive scholars" out there who argue Jesus is a purely mythological figure, and a read of the article provided by Eugene will make that quite apparant. --Ari (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

out of reverts

Well I'm out of reverts for today. I've talked to Deb and we've agreed no on the wikified title which means I now have 3 times on the unwikified title version. Someone else is going to have to stop this nonsense but OR without any specifics. jbolden1517^Talk 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am too, but then again, I think more people believe that this is OR than not. Thank you for saving me the time of slapping a 3RR warning on you, since you know it, and so do I for me. Orangemarlin 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to tell you both that 3RR is not an entitlement. Sophia 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But, I'm pretty sure someone needs to school bolden on deleting tags. •Jim62sch• 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bolden has yet to see any evidence. I think you forgot that part of the tagging process. jbolden1517^Talk 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Acharya S

I'm wondering where we want to put Acharya S, here or Jesus-myth hypothesis She needs to go somwhere. I think she falls more naturally into this article but its close:

1. She considers herself part of the Jesus-myth hypothesis group. I think self identification should be given some weight
2. Doherty... consider her part of their camp (sort of)
3. A lot of her fans are atheist
4. She is hostile to Christianity
5. hypothesis is handling specific authors and this article isn't (far far too many)

On the other hand:

1. She doesn't write about history or make historical arguments
2. She is not herself an atheist
3. She provides enormous detail about the evolution of myth from astrology which would be wonderful for this article

So what do you all think? jbolden1517^Talk 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the problem? We can cite her for anything that is useful for the topic at hand. This doesn't oblige us to discuss her entire opus. I do not think she is an academic author though, and if at all possible, we should reference the points needed to more reliable sources. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally something we completely agree on! She is a minor player to say the least and I would not regard her as a reliable source for wider theories. Sophia 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Acharya S isn't reliable, doesn't write about history or make historical arguments tends to come from those across the net who've never actually read her work. Scholars who've actually read her work speak highly of it. Read the review of her book Christ in Egypt by Dr. Robert Price:

"I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.

Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."

As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12

"What is a Mythicist?" article

The Mythicist Position video

--Jose5643 16:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs)

"OR", good faith, common sense and coherence

Great. So people insist that this article contains "original research", but they decline telling us where it is. The same people put the article on afd even though it is perfectly obvious that the topic treated is notable. This isn't editing, it's plain disruption. Some people really seem to lose it as soon as the name "Jesus" is involved. You'd expect that this would mostly happen with Christian zealots, but I cannot help but thinking that many of the less coherent and more zealous "atheists" aren't atheists for any rational reason but rather because of some traumatic obsession with Christianity. Sadly, as so often, all the fools are not in the other camp. For the purposes of this article, I refuse to honour the "OR" tag unless and until someone can point out in plain and coherent English how it is motivated, and how we can address the concerns. You cannot just claim random sentences are "original research", in a spirit of relativism or postmodernism claiming that any sentence taken out of its context is a creative act and thus original synthesis, this would make editing any article impossible, and we would be reduced to cutting down Wikipedia to a verbatim copy of the 1911 Britannica. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, come down, we need the wood.

Well, since we don't have a simple OR tag like we have a fact tag, it's a bit hard to point the crap out without a lot of cutting and pasting.

Finally, I don't really care what you choose to honour. •Jim62sch• 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We have inline tags for {{or}}, {{syn}}, and {{fixpov}} to annotate specific flavours of crap, at the exact spot where it happens. --Merzul 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the global OR tag needs to be removed and replaced with localized tags. It sounds like there are some OR issues here. But you can't expect people to fix them if you just c ompain and don't remove. Maybe we can get some consensus to force the use of only such localized OR tags for a couple months? That's probably clean up the problem permanently. JeffBurdges 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New names

section copied from Jesus-myth hypothesis page:

So what would potential articles be named? Some suggestions (bad I know but I'm hoping to get the ball rolling).

• Jesus as myth → Jesus as a mythological construct.
• Jesus as myth → Theories of Jesus as mythology
• Jesus as myth → Mythological Jesus
• Jesus as myth → Narratives of Jesus as mythology
• Jesus as myth → Jesus as mythology
• Jesus as myth → insert your better idea here!

I'm taking a stab at what I think the "Jesus Christ as myth" article is supposed to be from what has been written by its proponents here.

• Jesus Christ as myth → Parallels between naratives of Jesus and other mythology.
• Jesus Christ as myth → Syncretism of Jesus narratives and mythology.
• Jesus Christ as myth → Proposed accretion of the Jesus Christ narratives.
• Jesus Christ as myth → Good grief this is hard - someone help me out!

If we went for a split I would see the "Jesus Christ as myth or whatever" article as the parent one with the "Jesus as myth or whatever" as the daughter article. I still don't quite see how they are going to be much different as all that I have read starts off pretty much the same way - (i.e. some of this must be made up or borrowed) but then some of it steps that bit further (i.e. there are too many similarities this must all be cobbled together). However I can see how one article could get too big and would need to split into subtopics. We also need to decide where we would draw the line between the two articles and this should be easy to keep to as we will need to make sure the intro paragraph makes the distinction very clear. I would appreciate suggestions for opening paragraphs for the two articles if this is what we decide to do. I still feel we need to backtrack first before doing any of this. Sophia 08:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We should make the names as clearly distinct as possible. For a long time this article was called Jesus-Myth. No-one seemed to have a problem with that until someone (user:TrumpetPower! I think) objected on the grounds tht this is a Christian term (!). He created another mirror article called something like "Jesus as mythical creation" which was deleted. Of course now Str1977 objects to Jesus-Myth on the opposite grounds - that it implies that it is true that he's a "mere" myth. Personally I'm happy with "Jesus myth hypothesis" or "Jesus myth theory" for the name of the article that discusses the proposition that he was essentailly non-historical. The main problem is the other article. We need to remove some of the material, which overlaps too much with this one, and expand the material on the theorisation of mythemes etc. I think the second one should be something like Mythological aspects of the figure of Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ understood in the light of mythography, but these are incredibly clumsy and prolix. However shorter ones are just too ambiguous. Paul B 09:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "Jesus-myth hypothesis", but given the history of the article, maybe the title should return to "Jesus myth", and we can see how many people start complaining about POV in the title.

"Jesus Christ as myth" is a definite problem, though, and I think Sophia has illustrated that there's no obvious alternative to the current title. I'd weakly suggest something like "Comparative mythology and the gospels". Whatever it's ultimately called, that article needs a thorough revision to make clear its difference from "Jesus-myth hypothesis". --Akhilleus (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion: "mythology" is very different from "myth" in most persons' understanding of the word. "Myth" tends to imply something completely made-up, not true, and "mythology" certainly tends to refer to a more in-depth, possibly scholarly, study. So there's one way to divide all this. Jesus-myth means one thing. Jesus Christ as mythology tends to say something else. The use of "jesus Christ" in the comparative mythology slant, assuming that article is kept from the AfD or resurrected in some other form, might help as well, in my opinion. Any additional proposed articles, if implemented, should of course be linked to from here with a brief disambig clause (e.g., "For further parallels drawn in published sources between narratives of Jesus and other mythology, see ________"; "For a more in-depth descriptions of Jesus from a mythological perspective, see __________)" This of course assumes that the validity of such additional articles can gain agreement, which doesn't appear to be a sure bet at this stage in time. If the editors here are able to collectively articulate what the articles are about and why they were so named, the chances of a stable article are, I should think, greatly increased. ... Kenosis 14:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think mythology is better for the current Jesus Christ as myth one - it also links with the broader Christian mythology article. Much of the stuff that was taken from this article needs to be moved from the other one - not all though, as it still has to refer to the themes of this one. I'm not too happy about the structure either. I think the central arguments should be placed before the listing of parallels. Paul B 14:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. If the parallels over there in that article are properly cited to reliable sources that've made these analogies, it appears to have much better potential than appeared to be the case at first. ... Kenosis 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title of Jesus Christ as myth to Mythographic perspectives on Jesus, which was a suggestion made in the RfD. It's not ideal, but it is at least a more precise description. Paul B 22:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Jesus myth hypothesis" (this article) should cover the whole range and history of this particular view. It might include details about the parallels or it might not.

If the parallels are split off to another article, this other article should be termed something like "Paralells between Jesus and mythology".

I opt for retaining the word "hypothesis" in the title as any article is ipso facto on the hypothesis. "Jesus as myth" "Jesus myth" can be made redirects. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More on this: when I say Jesus we could also put Jesus Christ.

Syncretism is no way to go as it already assumes a certain reason for parallels.

"Comparative mythology and the Gospels" is a completely different topic, a) restricting itself to the Gospels, b) broadening itself to the field of comparative mythology (which is much broader than any Jesus myth discussion can ever be).

I am also not sure whehter "Mythographic perspectives" describes properly what the article is about right now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for making the change was simply to emphasise that they are different topics. As I said, the new title is not the best solution. It was just calculated to stop this page degenerating into semi-deranged rantings, get the debate back on track, and clarify once again why the new article was made. The very reason for splitting off in the first place was that numerous - sometimes rather absurd - claims were being added to this article about alleged parallels between Jesus and myths from a variety of cultures around the world. Dab and jbolden wanted this article to concentrate on the rational arguments of recent skeptical writers that Jesus was mythical being, not an historical individual. From what I could gather jbolden is a supporter of this hypothesis. Dab supports the more mainstream secular view that Jesus was a real healer/teacher who got crucified, but not a God-Man. So the idea was that a new article on "Jesus parallels" could be created. This would allow us to discuss all the perceived parallels from a variety of perspectives - without sullying the Dohery/Wells views with a lot of idiosyncratic stuff that is either fringy New Age speculation, Christian theology, Jungianism, Hindutva fantasy (Jesus was a Hindu or Buddhist) or whatever. So the idea is that the synchretism goes in the other article, which will explore all the various reasons why writers might see and interpret parallels. These would include "diabolic imitation" (Justin Martyr etc), Archetypes in the human mind (Jung), Mythemes (structuralism applied to myth/folk culture), Christianity existing on other continents (Mormon interpretations of Quetzelcoatl), a Divine Masterplan (C.S. Lewis) etc. These ideas are associated with a variety of positions which emerge at different points in history. For example the Lewis argument is a Christian response to the Frazerian/Jungian theories about universal myths, but it draws on older theological thinking about providential provision for Christianity. This is of course why this article was cut down in size - in order to concentrate clearly on presenting the Wells/Doherty theory as they and their supporters articulate it. At the moment the new article is clumsily construted because it was initially cobbled together and because improvement has been crippled by the disruptive behaviour of editors - leading Dab to leave in disgust and jbolden - seemingly - to retreat in shock because of the abuse he has received. Paul B 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into mud slinging Paul but I think some of the most disparaging comments about fellow editors have come from you. Orangemarlin chose to reply to a post I considered too spiteful to bother with, but I will admit to being hurt as your comments were obviously aimed at me and others who have tried to make something out of this article in the face of hideous faith driven onslaughts. I prefer to look forward at the moment and have held of adding anything until we know what is happening. I wish you had done the same. The last thing this article needs is another crap title so any changes should have been proposed here - which is what I tried to do by starting this thread. We will get nowhere if everyone is going to be "bold", make sweeping changes and accuse others of knowing nothing about the subject if they disagree. Sophia 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim and Orangemarlin have been abusive from the start. See the comments at the very beginning of the AfD from the former in particular in which he talks of a "poorly written piece of fecal matter". That is not how to write an AfD. What is most dismaying is the amount of effort that one has to make to get straightforward points across. My comment to Orangemarlin followed from losing my patience after numerous messages from him which constituted nothing but sarcasm. Also, it is fairly obvious that I was more or less right about his assumptions, but of course he can't ever admit that. This is just the kind of attitude that creates problems and it needs to be addressed. And no, I didn't have you in mind. Paul B 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it about Wikipedia that makes it (1) so damn addictive, and (2) so incredibly emotionally important? I recall how I totally flipped because of a certain editor's POV-pushing (SOPHIA probably knows what I'm talking about), but I mean, it's not like I'm in any sense responsible for the correctness of our article on say the argument from love, and yet I got more upset about that than the fact that my own academic career is going down the drain because I spend time doing WP:NOR when I should spend my time doing Original Research for my thesis. :O --Merzul 21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Deal with real life first Merzul - I've just finished a 6,000 word literature review which is why I have added no real content to these pages. I've got a few more weeks work then I have some time to do as I wish - do the same - get the real stuff done. Sophia 22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this article has been moved from "Jesus Christ in comparative mythology" to "Jesus in comparative mythology". I don't feel strongly about the title either way, but the move does look questionable, since it was done on NPOV grounds: that not everyone accepts that "Jesus" (the historical teacher) is "Christ" (the Messiah). However, I don't feel that a NPOV charge is warranted for this article, since it deals not with historicity, but with the mythological figure of "Jesus Christ" as treated in the Bible, and makes (or should make) no assertions about Jesus' historical identity. The mythological figure of "Jesus Christ" certainly does exist in the mind, in literature, and in culture, regardless of his historicity. I recommend we revert this title change. --davigoli (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new name

How about Jesus and comparative mythology? or Jesus Christ and comparative mythology? Sophia 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just change it to one of them, then. Seems like everyone else just changes titles or splits off articles without talking about it.  :-/ •Jim62sch• 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I did consider it ;o) but have decided that like King Canute I can hold back the tide of changes by telling them so. Let's see whether I have more success.... Sophia 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The title I used was suggested by User:Carlossuarez46 on the AfD. It seemed the best (or maybe least worst) of the options that have so far been proposed. I guess the "Jesus and..." formula is OK too. Paul B 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to change this title - Mythographic is such an obscure word. I propose Jesus Christ and comparative mythology for this one and for Jesus-myth hypothesis going back to Jesus as myth which echos what else is out there on the internet and in the books I have read. Even the Christian sites don't call it a hypothesis. Sophia 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So obscure (or really specialised) that no one is likely to search for it. Both titles look good to me. •Jim62sch• 12:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the title Jesus Christ in comparative mythology or Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. The use of "Jesus Christ" suits this topic because the mythological issues are closely tied into the word "Christ", for numerous reasons most of which I think are beyond the appropriate scope of this discussion. But among the main ones would be, very roughly stated, the distinction between the "pre-Good-Friday" Jesus and the "post-Easter" Christ as it relates to Christian theology. ... Kenosis 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course no-one will search for "Mythographic perspectives on Jesus", but I think that's rather unimportant in itself. Articles are found by following blue links, categories or by google and other search engines which don't just use titles. Paul B

Sophia, it's so refreshing to see someone actually asking for opinions and consensus prior to just doing whatever they want. Thank you Sophia for not attempting to own this article. I'll tell you what, whatever name you choose, I'll support, because I trust you on these points. I'm nearly having a coronary because someone for once in this article is trying to get consensus. I just hope that other editors learn from your skill set, although Carlos Suarez, Kenosis and Jim of course already understood that point. Thanks Sophia!!!!! Orangemarlin 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best option is Jesus Christ and comparative mythology as it acknowledges the messiah aspects of the topic and by using "and" rather than "in" it is neutral as it does not presuppose that such comparisons exist. I suggest we leave it 5 days from now and if no one protests we change. Sophia 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the statement in the first sentence of two presented by Sophia immediately above is necessarily granted by the participants here. The statement that "[the title 'Jesus Christ and comparative mythology'] does not necessarily presuppose that such comparisons exist" appears to me to assert that the words "Jesus Christ" are not necessarily comparable to mythology. If I may ask, what, insofar as words can tell, is the fear of confusion around here? that the words "mythical Jesus" or "Jesus as myth", or whatever, might be confused with "mystical Christ"? or however one cares to put it? or that those words might be confused with yet something else? or that various persons might co-opt these words for various other purposes?? I mean, this sort of thing is as old as the hills? This is, of course, the year 2007, not 1007 (see, e.g. Anselm of Canterbury). IMO, this article should be called in some way that objectively descibes its content, as dispassionately as possible and as straightforwardly as it possibly can. ... Kenosis 03:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Mythographic perspectives on Jesus appears to accomplish this, as does Jesus Christ in comparative mythology or Jesus Christ and comparative mythology. Kenosis 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the present title betrays an oblique, and perhaps even unconscious desire to sabotage the topic: we don't like this topic, so let's give it as contorted a name as we can come up with. Jesus Christ as myth is classes better, and perfectly accurate. However, the present name is not wrong, it's just a stylistic accident, and if it buys us peace, I can well live with it. I removed the "unreferenced" tag from the "Biblical account" section though. I do not think this can have been placed in seriousness and good faith. What do people want? Citation of the pertinent bible verse after every sentence? That would have nothing to do with an honest request for sources, and all with making simply making life difficult for others just because you can. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to be perfectly clear that the "Jesus myth article is logically a sub-article to this one, treated here under this section. This article establishes the mythographic facts that are employed by the "Jesus mythers" to build their case. Do not confuse the case with its building blocks. dab (𒁳) 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

False comparisons

There seem to be a number of false comparisons, circulating as a kind of urban legends, claiming for example that Dionysus, Horus and Hercules were 'virgin births' and that Dionysus turned water into wine. Is it worth writing a section debunking these, or would that be just feeding the trolls? 199.71.183.2 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What would constitute a "false comparision" between Jesus and any of the figures you mentioned? Comparisons are neither true nor false, they're observations of similarities and dissimilarities.Phyesalis 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they can be misleading. Zeus's inseminated girlfriends are not normally identified as virgins, because he is portrayed as lusting after them and then having sex with them in various forms. In other words the divine insemination is presented in the myths as a sexual act arising from sexual desire on the part of the god. This is very different from the Christian view. The insemination of Isis is also specifically presented as a sexual act. Paul B 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to forget that the original word that we now interpret as "virgin" just means young fertile woman/girl? It is different from the Christian view, but I don't see how that is relevant. This isn't about the Christian view of Jesus (there are already plenty of pages devoted to that), it is about comparative religion/mythology views and they find such associations significant(the lack of peer-reviewed material to this effect withstanding). This article has an appalling lack of secular peer-reviewed material relating to aretalogy and divine hero scholarship. Way too heavy on apologetics. Phyesalis (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to forget that the original word that we now interpret as "virgin" just means young fertile woman/girl? - Phyesalis

There is an academic theory that it (ie the greek word, rather than the Hebrew of which is was sometimes a translation) meant this several centuries before the New Testament. That has no bearing on the christian belief on the subject. In any case, if one of the parallels between Jesus and Osiris-Dionysius (or anyone) is that both were born of young women, then that really is an absurd argument.

This isn't about the Christian view of Jesus (there are already plenty of pages devoted to that), it is about comparative religion/mythology views and they find such associations significant(the lack of peer-reviewed material to this effect withstanding). This article has an appalling lack of secular peer-reviewed material relating to aretalogy and divine hero scholarship. Way too heavy on apologetics.

This article is about notable opinions on the relationship between . It is entirely irrelevant whether they come from Christians or non-Christians. TJ (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying that apologetics is irrelevant per se, but the fact that apologists/evidentialists don't see it as significant doesn't make it irrelevant. Particularly if other secular scholars see a legitimate connection. Again while comparative scholars' opinions are noteworthy, not all Christian commentary is. This is not a view of Jesus from a Christian perspective (that would be Jesus and Historicity of Jesus). Christian "belief" is not particularly relevant. Only reliable/verifiable and relevant scholarship (that is comparative scholarship) is relevant to this particular subject. Evidentialism should really be left to other pages. Phyesalis (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be making much sense that I can discern. The point is the meaninglessness of the comparison. To say that the story of Mary can be compared to - say - Danae is as meaningful as saying that her story can be compared to Queen Victoria, since both were virgins before they were made pregnant - by Zeus and Prince Albert respectively. That is not how the story of Mary is presented. The Christian perspective is the story. The "virginity" does not exist outside of the story. Therefore the Christian perspective is exactly what is being discussed. Certainly, if reputable scholars think that there is a meaningful comparison to be made between the Christian story of a virgin birth and pre-Christian myths of divine insemination then it should be discussed here. On the whole they don't. BTW, the Historicity of Jesus article does not discuss "a view of Jesus from a Christian perspective", and the Jesus article only discusses that perspective among others. Paul B (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"You don't seem to be making much sense that I can discern. The point is the meaninglessness of the comparison. To say that the story of Mary can be compared to - say - Danae is as meaningful as saying that her story can be compared to Queen Victoria"

You are absolutely correct. I think this subject as a whole has a good deal too much of the kind of comparisons that run: "Dionysus drank wine, Jesus drank wine - therefore Jesus is based on Dionysus" (Though the article itself doesn't state this particular one). The whole thing is also rather parallel to the Jesus myth theory page.

Ion Zone (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the first paragraph; none of the Buddha (Buddas? Budai?) have ever been considered gods in any sense, even the original.

Ion Zone (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparatives and the objective psyche

Can we link the comparatives between the mythologies via the objective psyche? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.228.86 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Embalming

An author inserted the following text into the section on Mythemes, in reference to the phrase "Jesus dies, his body is embalmed..."

Note: Since Jesus was Jewish, he was not embalmed. Jewish funeral rites forbid the preservation of the body by any means. The preparation of the body for interment would include washing, application of sweet smelling ointments and wrapping in a plain shroud. So 'embalmed' is an inappropriate term.

As the text of the article is not the proper place for such a debate (it either belongs on the talk page or else should be resolved with a simple text change), I have removed the note and changed the reference in the text from "embalmed" to "his body was prepared for internment"; and in the section titled "Predecessors and parallels" to "annointed". Ross Fraser (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

History section

I must say, as a newcomer to this article, it's amazingly well-written given the controversy around its subject matter. However, I've marked the History section with a cleanup-section tag, since several paragraphs are quite unreadable due to long lists of sources. The sources should probably be moved to the citations section, with links from inline text paraphrasing the arguments or facts from the sources in paragraph form. Davigoli (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

can everyone obsessing over the Jesus myth please focus on the Jesus myth article and leave this one alone please? --dab (𒁳) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that people obsess over this because academics are so prone to attack the faith of Christians, yet are complete cowards when it comes to pc subjects like Islam. Really, do you have a related "Mohammad as Myth" article, or one describing "Mohammad Myth Theory"? Just a cursory look into this subject and I found five articles related to this subject. The only one I found regarding Islam (Mythology of Islam) took a good long paragraph to explain why the word "myth" isn't offensive and how it fits in with academia. Really, you people are such cowards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwaggoner (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Etymology disagreement.

I am reverted back the disagreement a Christian scholar professor had with the etymology of Tom Harpur (another past Christian scholar). Considering Dr. Gasque was supported by the results of his survey of "twenty leading Egyptologists" this seems to me to be a blatant misuse of the wp:due policy. Why should the opinion of actual Egytology scholars be completely omitted while the opinions of a poet and Journalist/New Testament/Greek scholar retained? How are they more mainstream? And considering the every unsourced statements that agreed with the connections to Egyptian mythology was retained while a cited one that disagrees was reverted, I think there may be a large lack of WP:NPOV. Especially when one also notices Harpur's academic speciality (which is not Egyptology nor history) was reverted to "of the University of Toronto".

As far as the edit summary:'this is not the "Jesus myth" article. It is not about the historiticy of Jesus. At least read the title please', how is it that the connecting the etymology is about Jesus in comparative mythology, but pointing out disagreements with the etymology suddenly makes it about the "historiticy [sic] of Jesus"? The word Christ not coming from Egyptians does not suddenly mean he lived, any more than Skywalker not coming from Greek means Darth Vader lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridrealy (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, so I made a typo in the edit summary. It referred to the removal of the huge unwikified essay, which certainly has its merits, but which is discussing eccentric Jesus myth fringe theories (Price etc.) rather than the topic of this article. This is exactly the type of obsessive crankery that does not belong here, but on the dedicated Jesus myth article. I can appreciate that some people are very interested in the ideas of Price et al. Which is why they have their own article. But this article is about mythology, and not about popular books with titles like The Amazing Shrinking Son of Man or The God Who Wasn't There. There is no reason to write two articles on the same topic, is there. I reproduce the cut out text below.

---

{{offtopic}}

The theory that the various parts of the New Testament are not historical reports but rather hypertexts acting as a “Midrash” (Jewish Haggadah) or creative re-writing of earlier source texts has found increasing support in theological commentary; though it is still widely rejected by orthodox Christian scholars such as W.R. Telford, Robert J. Rabel, Bruce M. Metzger, J.N.D. Anderson, Edwin Yamauchi, and Internet apologists like J. P. Holding. Historical and Theological writer Michael J. Reimer argues in “The Pentateuch: The Hypotext of Mark 1:1-4:34 (McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 7, 103-131 - 2006)” that there is a growing school of writers that are finding, for instance, The Gospel of Mark (and due to their heavy reliance on Mark, the rest of the Gospels) to be suspiciously reliant on older source texts and themes. He points out that there is “the persistence of a critical heuristic held by the cryptographic school that Mark is massively referential and that a totalizing structure arising out of that referentiality can be recovered.” Robert M. Price points out that it is not simply an attempt to prove that Jesus was a myth, but a suggestion that once the Midrash is taken out all together, along with the similarities between Jesus and earlier dying-rising gods and popular ancient stories of the time, there is really nothing left over, and the burden of proof regarding Jesus’ existence falls on those attempting to suggest that Jesus actually did historically exist. Price suggests the New Testament writers started out by adopting the general dying-rising god themes that were prevalent at the time, as well as the poluar ancient writings referring to stories of things like escaping the cross, empty tombs, and infants being persecuted by tyrants, then fleshed out the details of the narrative by creatively re-writing sources like the Septuagint, Homer, Euripides' Bacchae and Josephus. Earl Doherty, author of the “Jesus Puzzle” and “Challenging the Verdict: A Cross Examination of Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’ agrees with Price, and argues in his 2005 review of Price's "Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" that “Price has a way ... of putting forward no-nonsense arguments that are not only natural and compelling, they make it difficult to champion any alternative with a straight face - or a rational mind.” Doherty goes on to conclude that “It is hard for a reader to emerge from this book and not wonder how it could be that two millennia of Christianity could have been so taken in by the Gospels, duped by accounts that are so obviously storytelling, whose evolution and editorializing and barefaced doctoring of sources lie naked on their pages.” Elements of the Midrash argument can be found in a growing body of work by many authors, including the following: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative; John Bowman, The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah; Thomas L. Brodie, “Luke the Literary Interpreter:Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings.” PhD. Dissertation presented to Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome; John Dominic Crossan, The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative; J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Making of Mark: The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest Gospel. Volumes 1 and 2; Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ?; C.F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel.” In D.E. Ninehham (ed.) Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot; Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions;Tom Harpur, The Pagan Christ; Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative. The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures 1977-1978; Dennis R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer: Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles; Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark; Dale Miller and Patricia Miller, The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 21); David G Palmer, The Markan Matrix: A Literary Structural Analysis of the Gospel of Mark; Lilian Portefaix, Sisters Rejoice: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians and Luke-Acts as Seen by First-Century Philippian Women. Coniectanea biblica. New Testament Series, 20; Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man; Robert M. Price, “New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash. (ed.) Jacob Neusner and Alan Avery Pecks in The Encyclopedia of Midrash; Wolfgang Roth, Hebrew Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark; William R. Stegner, “The Baptism of Jesus: A Story modeled on the Binding of Isaac.” in Herschel Shanks(ed.), Abraham and Family: New Insights Into the Patriarchal Narratives; Rikkui E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 88; Barrie Wilson, How Jesus Became Christian; Various Authors, The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. (ed.) Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter. This view was partially popularized in the award winning 2005 documentary “The God Who Wasn’t There,” which included presenters like Sam Harris, Robert M. Price, Alan Dundes, and Richard Carrier. The DVD also included commentaries by Richard Dawkins and Earl Doherty. Some of the participants in the film are now involved in 'The Jesus Project,' a five year project involving 50 scholars intent on determining if Jesus existed historically or not Further criticisms have arisen relating to the veracity of the New Testament from a document point of view. Bart Ehrman, for instance, has argued that one of the most famous passages in the New Testament, “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:7),” is in fact not genuine to the scripture but a later interpolation, because it is not present in the oldest and best manuscripts of the gospel.

Robert M. Price's encyclopedia article "New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash" provides a summary of generally accepted demonstrations in biblical literature of how The Jesus narratives have been modeled on earlier writing. Here is an excerpt from the article regarding imitations in the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles: "Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ Baptism (1:9-11)": The scene in broad outline may derive from Zoroastrian traditions of the inauguration of Zoroaster’s ministry. Son of a Vedic priest, Zoroaster immerses himself in the river for purification, and as he comes up from the water, the archangel Vohu Mana appears to him, proffering a cup and commissions him to bear the tidings of the one God Ahura Mazda, whereupon the evil one Ahriman tempts him to abandon this call. In any case, the scene has received vivid midrashic coloring. The heavenly voice (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages. “You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11) combines bits and pieces of Psalm 2:7, the divine coronation decree, “You are my son. Today I have begotten you;” Isaiah 42:1, the blessing on the returning Exiles, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;” and Genesis 22:12 (LXX), where the heavenly voices bids Abraham to sacrifice his “beloved son.” And as William R. Stegner points out, Mark may have in mind a Targumic tradition whereby Isaac, bound on the altar, looks up into heaven and sees the heavens opened with angels and the Shekinah of God, a voice proclaiming, “Behold, two chosen ones, etc.” There is even the note that the willingness of Isaac to be slain may serve to atone for Israel’s sins. Here is abundant symbolism making Jesus king, servant, and atoning sacrifice. In view of parallels elsewhere between John and Jesus on the one hand and Elijah and Elisha on the other, some also see in the Jordan baptism and the endowment with the spirit a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.; Gospel of MatthewItalic text, The Resurrection of Jesus (27:62-28:20): Matthew had before him Mark’s empty tomb story and no other source except the Book of Daniel, from which he has embellished the Markan original at several points. (Matthew had already repaired to Daniel in his Pilate story, where the procurator declared, “I am innocent of the blood of this man,” Matthew 27:24b, which he derived from Susanna 46/Daniel 13:46 LXX: “I am innocent of the blood of this woman.”) (cf. John Dominic Crossan). First, Matthew has introduced guards at the tomb and has had the tomb sealed, a reflection of Nebuchadnezzer’s sealing the stone rolled to the door of the lion’s den with Daniel inside (6:17). Mark had a young man (perhaps an angel, but perhaps not) already in the open tomb when the women arrived. Matthew simply calls the character an angel and clothes him in a description reminiscent of the angel of Daniel chapter 10 (face like lightning, Daniel 10:6) and the Ancient of Days in Daniel chapter 7 (snowy white clothing, Daniel 7:9b). He rolls the stone aside. The guards faint and become as dead men, particular dead men, as a matter of fact, namely the guards who tossed Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-nego into the fiery furnace in (Daniel 3:22). To provide an appearance of the risen Jesus to the women at the tomb (something conspicuously absent from Mark), Matthew simply divides Mark’s young man into the angel and now Jesus himself, who has nothing more to say than a lame reiteration of the angel’s words. He appears again on a mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16) which he now says Jesus had earlier designated, though this is the first the reader learns of it. There he dispenses yet more Danielic pastiche: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” This is based on a conflation of two Greek versions of Daniel 7:14. In the LXX, “to him [the one like a son of man was] ... given the rule… the authority of him [the Ancient of Days].” In Theodotion, he receives “authority to hold all in the heaven and upon the earth.” The charge to make all nations his disciples comes from Daniel 7:14, too: “that all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (cf. Randel Helms). Gospel of Luke, The Sinful Woman (7:36-50): According to Brodie, Luke has created his rather cumbersome story of the sinful woman from a pair of Elisha’s miracles, the never-failing cruse of oil (2 Kings 4:1-7) and the raising of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kings 4:8-37). The widow of Elisha’s disciple is in financial debt, with her creditors about to take her two children in payment (2 Kings 4:1). In Luke’s version, her arrears have become a debt of sin (Luke 7:37, 40-42). Elisha causes her oil to multiply, becoming enough to pay her debt. Jesus’ cancellation of the woman’s debt is less material but no less miraculous, as he pronounces her forgiven (Luke 7:44-50). As for the oil, it has become the myrrh with which the woman anoints Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:38). In Luke’s version, Simon the Pharisee has invited the itinerant Jesus to dine (Luke 7:36), a reflection of the Shunammite’s invitation of Elisha to stay and eat with her whenever passing by (2 Kings 4:8-11). As a reward, Elisha grants her to conceive a son. Years later, he dies of sunstroke, whereupon she journeys to Elisha for help, falling at his feet (2 Kings 4:27), just as the suppliant woman anoints the feet of Jesus (Luke 7:38). There is no need to posit Luke’s creation of the whole anointing story, the core of which he got from Mark 14:3-9, but he has substantially rewritten it in light of 2 Kings.; Gospel of John, Water into Wine (2:1-11): Though the central feature of this miracle story, the transformation of one liquid into another, no doubt comes from the lore of Dionysus, the basic outline of the story owes much to the story of Elijah in 1 Kings 17:8-24 LXX (cf. Randel Helms). The widow of Zarephath, whose son has just died, upbraids the prophet: “What have I to do with you, O man of God?” (Ti emoi kai soi, 17:18). John has transferred this brusque address to the mouth of Jesus, rebuking his mother (2:4, Ti emoi kai soi, gunai). Jesus and Elijah both tell people in need of provisions to take empty pitchers (udria in 1 Kings 17:12, udriai in John 2:6-7), from which sustenance miraculously emerges. And just as this feat causes the woman to declare her faith in Elijah (“I know that you are a man of God,” v. 24), so does Jesus’ wine miracle cause his disciples to put their faith in him (v. 11).; Acts of the Apostles, Peter’s Vision (10:9-16): To prime the reluctant apostle for his visit to the dwelling of the Roman Cornelius, God sends Peter a vision, one recycled from the early chapters of Ezekiel (cf. Helms). First Peter beholds the heavens open (thn ouranon anewgmenon, 10:11), just like Ezekiel did (hnoicqhsan oi ouranoi, Ezekiel 1:1 LXX). Peter sees a vast sheet of sailcloth containing every kind of animal, ritually clean and unclean, and the heavenly voice commands him, “Eat!” (Fagh, Acts 10:13), just as Ezekiel is shown a scroll and told to “Eat!” (Fagh, Ezekiel 2:9 LXX). Peter is not eager to violate kosher laws and so balks at the command. “By no means, Lord!” (MhdamwV, Kurie, Acts 10:14), echoing Ezekiel verbatim, MhdamwV, Kurie (Ezekiel 4:14 LXX), when the latter is commanded to cook his food over a dung fire. Peter protests that he has never eaten anything unclean (akaqarton) before (10:14), nor has Ezekiel (akaqarsia, 4:14 LXX)."

Price has been asked in a question and answer session whether his argument could be taken to imply that if the entire tradition was simply fictive, the writers did what they did for political reasons. The parallel with Euripides' “Bacchae” and Dionysus, for instance, could point to the deception theme in the story. In the “Bacchae,” Cadmus says of Dionysus that “[f]or if, as you claim, this man is not a god, why not call him one? Why not tell a lie, a really good one? Then it will seem that some god has been born to Semele. We—and all our family—will win honor. (424-428).” If this is compared to Christ, it may be taken to suggest that the early Christian writers were deliberately perpetrating a fraud. Price responded that this could have happened, would explain why someone completely fictive gained such a following in the first century, and would also agree with the biblical theme of "responsible lying," meaning that lying is acceptable if it done to protect God's people, such as in the case of Rahab (Joshua 2: 3-4), which is recalled in the New Testament (James 2:25) as an exemplary case. In his published works, Price does not go this far, and contends Jesus merely has the characteristics of a 'Legendary' figure. Price acknowledges that there are a few ancient non-gospel sources that claim Jesus Christ was a real living person (such as Tacitus). However, Price points out that even if these references are taken as genuine (which many scholars contest), they at most refer to the claims of the contemporary Christians of the time about Jesus, and were never claims of Jesus as a contemporary of the ancient writers. He points out that there are no non-Christian ancient sources that report even having met Christ, as there are for other historical figures to whom miracles have been ascribed, like Apollonius of Tyana and Caesar Augustus.

The relation of Jesus to comparative mythology has come under question by Paul Rhodes Eddy’s and Gregory A. Boyd’s book “The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (2007),” arguing that the Jews of that time would not have accepted a paganizing influence and, in any case, the dying-rising God themes were older than the Jesus story. In his review of the book entitled “The Jesus Mirage,” Robert M. Price says that “Their first step is to circumscribe a magic zone from about 165 BCE to 70 CE when there was no Jewish inclination, but rather the reverse, to accept Hellenistic influence. They figure that the Hasmonean victory over the Seleucid Hellenizers put an end once and for all to the temptation to Hellenize. Hellenization began to rear its ugly head again only after the Roman victory over the Jews. This strikes me as a gratuitous assumption. Indeed, the fact that there is during their magic period much evidence of anti-Hellenistic Zealotry surely means the ‘danger’ of influence continued. You don’t strengthen the fortifications when there is no enemy at the door ... What about the astrology of the Dead Sea Scrolls ... And Second-to third- century synagogues with mosaics of Hercules, Dionysus and the Zodiac ... Obviously you don’t decorate your house of worship with images of gods you find abhorrent! And this was just at the time Yavneh Judaism was getting stronger and stronger! Judaism just was not a solid monolith at this time, much less in Jesus’ time ... Our authors find it necessary to misrepresent Margaret Barker, too. She argues very powerfully (in The Older Testament and The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God) that popular Judaism had not embraced the monotheism of the Exilic prophets yet, even in spite of priestly indoctrination and interdiction. She ventures that Jesus as the resurrected son of God was a direct survival of Israelite polytheism. Boyd and Eddy cannot seem to get through their learned heads that Barker is not talking about a Jewish embrace of Pagan mythemes. Her point is that mythemes the rabbis later reinterpreted (explained away) as pagan were indigenously Israelite, shared with Canaanite neighbors, not borrowed from them. Thus there is no need to posit some repulsive borrowing from hated paganism to account for easy Jewish familiarity with dying and rising gods. Ezekiel knew the daughters of Jerusalem were engaged in ritual mourning of the slain god Tammuz even in the days of the Exile. Baal and Osiris were well known in Israel, too ... Boyd and Eddy indulge in overkill when it comes to the dying and rising gods, summarizing Jonathan Z. Smith’s failed case for dismantling this ideal type with not even a footnote referring to, much less rebutting, my detailed refutation of Smith in Deconstructing Jesus. They follow Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi and other apologists in arguing, absurdly, that the Mystery Religions borrowed the dying and rising god mytheme from Christianity - even though early Christian apologists like Tertullian, Firmicus Maternus, and Justin Martyr admit the pagan versions were earlier (the devil fabricated the gospel events long before they happened with Jesus)!”

---

--dab (𒁳) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see much of a problem with your removal of that section as it is far off topic as far as I can tell and belongs elsewhere (as you mentioned).Madridrealy (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I know. The main problem seems to be that people tend to lose it once "Jesus" is mentioned. And this does include both the religious and the anti-religious. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Massey, Harpur, unreliable sources

As per the consensus established on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Tom_Harpur_and_Gerald_Massey.2C_Egyptology, Gerald Massey and Tom Harpur are not to be considered reliable sources in Egyptology as they are not "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." They hold fringe theories in the field of Egyptology, so their work should be treated accordingly. I started to edit it to note this. Madridrealy (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is Massey and Harpur are actually talking more about what would be called Historical Anthropology or Ethnology than Egyptology as we know it. The main issue with Historical Anthropology is that it didn't really get a good foundation until the late 1950s and it wasn't until the 70s and 80s that the framework was actually created to do something with that foundation. Furthermore, Egyptology was still in the Imperial synthesis phase most archaeology was going through in 1907 when Massey wrote Ancient Egypt so we can't judge his credentials by today's modern standards.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The link for W. Ward Gasque's e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists offers us nothing to substantiate this claim. The link is nothing more than a re-telling of the claim. Manson 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

Fifth line of interpretation

Couldn't it be that there is another significant line of interpretation somewhat eclipsed in the introduction? As far as comparative mythology as an academic discipline is concerned, Jesus' interdependence with pre-Christian mythological figures is usually taken to relativise the historicity of many episodes and traits attributed to him the gospels, but without denying the fact that there had been a historical Jesus. I think that the words "open to several interpretations besides ahistoricity" are a little ill-chosen, as they seem to present the following list as the only four alternatives to assuming complete ahistoricity. Trigaranus (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "only four" -- that's a large spectrum of possibilities. --dab (𒁳) 16:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Freke, Gandy, Doherty, GA Wells

This article plainly contains some technical and valuable material. It seems to have been poisoned with rubbish from the internet.

The authors used as references in these defective sections are not a reliable source as specified in WP:RELIABLE. Freke and Gandy are journalists, not scholars. Earl Doherty likewise is self-published. Frank Zindler was not a scholar either. G.A.Wells was an academic, but his specialism was German language, not mythology. As such, whether one agrees with them or not, they cannot be used as authorities for the article. I've gone through and removed them.

Would people agree that, in view of the strong feelings that people tend to have about Jesus (for or against), that ALL material on this page should be from academic sources, and referenced?

I also removed a passage from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Justin was not addressing the argumentthat Jesus was Bacchus, as a look at the linked text showed instantly. As such, it did not belong here. I have my doubts about the very long passage from Justin still in this article. Roger Pearse (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edits, although I would point out that G.A.Wells is not just a specialist in German language, but in German literature. He's written on Goethe, for instance. So at first glance he wouldn't be a bad source for the history of German thought about Christianity, or whatever. He just happens to hold some rather odd views, and they make him an unsuitable source for most Christianity-related articles (except ones covering non-standard theories like Christ myth theory). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this type of topic begs for everything to be properly sourced with in-line references. Journalists should not be seen as reliable sources in this area (except, perhaps, to the extent that a newspaper of record like the Washington Post or New York Times reports the statements or findings properly credentialed scholars - in which case they would be acting as journalists rather than as scholars).

I do wonder, though, if it would be appropriate to add a section on something along the lines of "Christ and myth in popular culture". That would give us a home to acknowledge all of the non-scholarly, popular-audience "stuff" that this topic seems to attract. For example, it might make it easier to keep it out of the rest of the article if we could drop into a section like that a paragraph saying "In 2001, journalists Freke and Grandy published a book entitled The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? speculating that . . . " If the material were in there - but described for what it is and clearly identified as "popular culture" - it might help keep the enthusiasts at bay. EastTN (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a whole article devoted to theories along the Freke/Gandy line, and they're mentioned prominently there. That article is Christ myth theory. (It needs some help.) So I think that all that needs to be done in Jesus Christ in comparative mythology is mention that there are theories of this sort, and that they're fully covered at the other article... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right - that makes more sense. EastTN (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Above Diagram

In the "Jesus as unhistorical myth", there is a paragraph beginning with "The above diagram shows a circle with a circumference of 1000 units". That paragraph and the following two paragraphs go on to explain this diagram. But there is no diagram. I'm guessing someone deleted it for some reason, but did not edit the text. Could someone please fix this? -- 65.39.12.130 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

New editor ZenithNoesis is claiming that citations in the Jesus Myth section are "fraudulent" ("the citations supporting "mostly considered obsolete in current scholarship" were a fraud. They linked right back to this very Wikipedia article"). Could ZN explain what he means? Sometimes links can be cyclical, but the citations are perectly normal. If you click on the note number you are taken to the relevant footnote. How is that "fraudulent"? Was ZN perhaps expecting to be linked to an external webpage? The citations are to books. This is how these citations work in all articles. Paul B (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading between the lines of ZenithNoesis's gnomic histrionics, I asume he is referring to the fact that the footnoted information was incomplete in the notes, so I've imported the full references in reference section from CMT article. IMO, this is a good reason why we should not have abbreviated notes supported by a separate bibliography, since the editing process can lead to the mostly accidental deletion of relevant reference link information. Needless to say there is nothing "fraudulent" about this, not is it any justification for removing legitimate, if incomplete references. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that several times this article draws conclusions that cannot be sufficiently supported by the sources it cites and which are in violation of the NPOV policy.

1. "The relevance of myth to the study of Jesus and the Gospels is generally rejected by modern scholarship.[1]" is supported only by a reference to "Myth" in Dictionary of Jesus and Gospels. The Dictionary Of Jesus and Gospels surely cannot presume to speak for the whole of "modern scholarship" and does not represent a neutral point of view. I altered this to "modern Christian Scholarship" and this change was deleted. Please explain why.

2. "In current scholarly discussion, the application of foreign myth to understanding Jesus and the New Testament gospels is of doubtful relevance.[2]" This conclusion is drawn from the same source and has a similar problem. "Christian scholarly discussion" would surely be more appropriate.

3. In the section on Jesus As Unhistorical Myth, the comment "The hypothesis is mostly considered obsolete in current scholarship,[13][14]" cites two sources which consist only of a name, year and page number. What do these actually refer to? --Mkptym (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1) A peer-reviewed academic source by a leading scholar in the field of early Christianity and historical Jesus studies can make statements on consensus and the like. Your change to "modern Christian Scholarship" was reverted as (1) it is not what the source says and (2) it was a POV change.

2) As above.

3) They refer to the academic works by Richard Burridge and Robert E. Van Voorst in the "References" section by corresponding author and date. --Ari (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

re 1&2: I question whether "The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels" is in any sense "peer-reviewed" or "academic" and whether its authors (three theologians) are "leading scholars in the field of historical jesus" or meet the neutral point of view standard required to make such a broad statement on historical scholarship as a whole.

re 3: thanks. On general inspection the sources seem less suspect that 1 and 2 and at least there are two of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkptym (talk • contribs) 06:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an encyclopaedia with contributions by academics focusing on the topic of Jesus and the Gospels. I am yet to see how this reliable published source is suspect. The author of the individual article is James D.G. Dunn, a prominent scholar on early Christianity and the historical Jesus (see his two recent MASSIVE volumes Jesus Remembered and Beginnings from Jerusalem as examples of his scholarship). His statement is true of scholarship as a whole on the subject, and you will not find scholars appealing to mythology to understand the figure of Jesus. Finally, those three names are editors and not the authors.

If you disagree, please provide reliable sources for that position. --Ari (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the source is that the article and its editors are universally experts only in the field of theology. The statement that the relevance of the study of other mythological deities is "generally rejected by modern scholarship" presumes to speak for other disciplines, especially the study of history. Given that the study of facts (history) and the study of systems of faith (theology) are just about polar opposites, the source is surely overstepping the limits of its authors' expertise. I don't think the physical size of the writings of the author can be said to speak for his validity on a topic he does not specialise in. To clarify, I'm not a Christ myth theorist, I just disagree with such general and poorly justified statements in an article which should present a neutral point of view. --Mkptym (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, James Dunn is a well credentialed scholar in the field of historical Jesus studies. That is a historical discipline within Biblical studies (which is historically orientated), and it makes use of some of the most stringent historical criteria. As experts regarding the history of the gospels they are well aware of the historical context of the gospels, what influences their may be and where other fields interact with it. This most definatenly is not the polar opposite of history. And you seem to miss my clear point with regard to his work. It is not the physical size, but the fact that he has written lots of reputable historical scholarship in the field. Furthermore, on your claim about editors being theologians, if that it is in regard to me, my studies and work in historical Jesus studies are in the context of an ancient history department. For example, I have also studied Roman and Hellenistic history, as well as ancient Egyptian religion (for which I actually hold an award from the leading academic society for ancient Egyptian history in the country).

Anyway, all that said. The source is good, and his statement is backed up by the wide array of scholarship. If you disagree with the statement, maybe you can bring forth some verifiable scholarly source that argue that there is a consensus that Jesus must be understood in terms of Gerald Massey's confused understanding of specific Egyptian myths. --Ari (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Focus of this Article

As it currently stands, it seems like this article is trying to rehash a lot of what is on the Christ myth theory page. Not only does this raise content fork issues, it's totally unneccesary. Most people in serious academic circles who have tried to situate Jesus in the context of mythology didn't go so far as to deny Jesus' historicity. So, rather than recover the Christ myth theory here, let's use this page to describe the history of the more mainstream reductionist Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, modern scholars like Alan Dundes, and then mention the alternative interpretation of the topic like the "true myth" proposals of C. S. Lewis, René Girard, and so on. Eugene (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The article has numerous problems which I tried to address but it was a very large task. This task involves removal of a lot of content to the dismay of some particular editors. --Ari (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

we need by all means avoid the spillover of "Jesus myth" nonsense. This is a serious topic of comparative mythology and the origin of Christianity. Of course there was a historical Jesus, but this is not the topic of this article. Jesus was a 1st century wandering rabbi. Christianity developed in the 300 years of about AD 100-400, long after the death of the historical Jesus. Consequently, Christianity as a religion has only a tenuous connection to the historical Jesus, and a much stronger connection to the religious landscape of the Roman empire. The point of this article is to illuminate these connections, not to bicker about what may or may not be derived from the biography of the actual historical Jesus -- if the historical Jesus asked his disciples to drink wine as his blood to remember him before being crucified, so much the better template did he make as the nucleus of the cult that subsequently developed around him. If he didn't, it stands to reason that he "should have" done, so the episode was inserted. It isn't at all necessary to dispute that the episode may have been historical in order to point it out as extremely relevant for linking Christ to Dionysus.

Does it never occur to any of the "Christ mythers" that if the historical Obama can try to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate because he wants to be associated with JFK, that the historical Jesus may actively do or say things that will associate him with mythology? Saying "it's mythological, therefore it cannot be historical" utterly fails to understand the very real drive to emulate myth by reenacting it.

The article also needs to separate idle comparison of archetypes ("mother and child deities", "dead-and-resurrected deities", "sacral king" and the like) from the highly detailed parallels to contemporary traditions. It turns out that the cult of Dionysus as it existed in the Hellenistic and Roman period has the most striking, detailed parallels, including all the archetypes but also many of the highly specific details of the Christ myth, including the titles of "Saviour" and "Anointed", the wandering god as a "prophet of himself", the sacrifice of the god by hanging him from a tree or pole, the eating of the god's flesh, the association with wine, the promise of a better afterlife to the god's followers, etc. Such close parallels need to be given WP:DUE precedence over the idle listing of vaguely related archetypes. --dab (𒁳) 13:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus as "true-myth" section could be expanded

As CS Lewis and Tolkien both shared this understanding I think there should be a few quotes from either one or both to help readers understand just what this meant for Lewis and Tolkien (they differ slightly in nuances and the actual terminology they used). The John Hick quote does not articulate the position of either Lewis or Tolkien or others who hold a positive view of myth with regard to Jesus. I have a stack of Lewis's books and would like to expand this a little in regards to what he actually wrote on this. DMSBel (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I see there was a quote from Lewis in already. I expanded that a little and added another. Something from Tolkien could still be added perhaps.

I have added a short paragraph which gives John Warwick Montogomery's assessment of the difference in nuance between Tolkien and Lewis's novels as works of literary apologetics. Montogomery also included Charles Williams and GK Chesterton in his typology, but I have not mentioned them here as it might complicate the section too much.DMSBel (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Typo?

"Christianity's influence on the Mystery religions (so Augustine of Hippo)"

Why does it say "so" Augustine of Hippo? Is so a Latin abbreviation like i.e. or e.g.? Augustine of Hippo definitely isn't the only figure involved with Mystery religions. 209.134.115.80 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

One of the scholars used to support the view stating that comparing Jesus to Egyptian gods is wrong is Kenneth Kitchen: "Theologian W. Ward Gasque composed an e-mail to twenty leading Egyptologists, including Professor Emeritus of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool Kenneth Kitchen"

Wiki article on Kitchen states: "Kitchen is often called an evangelical scholar for his research which provides archaeological support for the Old Testament. In his books, such as On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), Kitchen argues that the historical evidence supports the reliability of biblical accounts."

He does not seem to be a reliable, ubiased scholar when it comes to this particular matter, as he has spent his career trying to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Notme iswear (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a career scholar working towards a particular point does not, in and of itself, make someone an unreliable or biased source: certainly, you would not disqualify Stephen Hawking from speaking about black holes. What makes for a reliable source for Wikipedia is the scholar being used by neutral secondary sources such as professional (as distinct from ideological) journals, newspapers, and so on. In that regard, I agree with you on Kitchen's reliablility; but that has nothing to do with him being a scholar with a narrow area of expertise. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean that he is unreliable because of his narrow field of study. I think he is unreliable because he is an "evangelical scholar", meaning that he would dismiss any claims which contradict the Bible or his beliefs. One does not get that title by being unbiased. Notme iswear (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Being a career scholar working towards a particular point does not, in and of itself, make someone an unreliable or biased source" ?!!! WTF!!! If that is not the definition of someone who is biased and who should not be cited as a reliable source, then what is??? Apparently, whoever is controlling the content of this ridiculously biased article is also biased and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.177.80 (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

New Testament Narrative

Why is this section a part of the article? I could understand if it cited some passages from the New Testament that have some relevance to the (possible) influence of mythology (Pagan beliefs) on Christian beliefs, but that is not the case. Not only does it have nothing to do with the main theme of the article, it does not even accurately reflect what the New Testament actually says. The entire section should either be removed, or perhaps renamed: "What I Was Taught to Believe".

To be more specific: 1. "According to the New Testament, Jesus was... conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary." - It is well known among NT scholars that the Hebrew bible (Isaiah) said "young woman" rather than "virgin"; and modern restorations (such as the Good News Bible) restore that original. Thus, it is incorrect (and biased) to simply state that the NT says that Jesus was "born of the Virgin Mary".

2. "Connected to his Messianic credentials he is a descendant of the royal blood of David." - Matthew states that Jesus was descended from David, and he refers to Jesus as a "son of David" on several occasions. But Mark and Luke are careful to avoid making that identification, and Luke even specifically denies it. (Luke lists Joseph as a descendant of David, but he also states that people only THOUGHT that Jesus was the son of Joseph). Thus, it is incorrect (and biased) to simply state the the NT says that Jesus was a descendant of David.

3. "... he is part of the Holy Family often associated with the Holy Trinity in Christian symbolism." - Where does the NT say anything about a "Holy Trinity"?

4. "Especially noteworthy among his miracles, he displays the ability to transfer his powers to very ordinary peoples..." Again, the author displays a particularly biased view. Matthew does not say that Jesus had any powers, much less that he was able to transfer them to other people!

5. "... his transfiguration... reveals him as the Son of God..." - Again, the author is simply revealing his (biased) interpretation. One could just as easily argue that the story of the "transfiguration" was simply meant to parallel a very similar story in the Old Testament about Moses. Thus, Matthew might simply have been attempting to show (as he does in other passages) that Jesus was the equal of other prophets. One might also note that Mark does not even say that Jesus was transfigured in any way. (According to Mark, it was only his CLOTHES that became dazzling white).

6. "He dies and his body is prepared for interment..." - (According to John only).

7. "On the third day he rises from the dead..." - Sunday morning is only a day and a half after Friday afternoon (when the narrative states that he died).

8. "... before miraculously ascending to heaven." - Only Luke (in Acts) and an alternate ending to Mark (which most NT scholars agree is not authentic to Mark's original gospel) say anything about Jesus ascending to heaven. The author might have noted that if that were true, it is odd that neither Matthew nor John mention it.

9. "For his death to atone for humanity..." - The rest of the section is essentially nothing more than a statement of the author's beliefs.

Again, what does any of this have to do with comparative mythology???

76.28.177.80 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)