Talk:Jesus in comparative mythology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pastafarian edits

Indeed amusing, but once is enough. Perhaps the IP's point is that the article is what is technically known in the field as "crap"? You have to wonder when "....in modern scholarship since the 19th century, that Jesus Christ has striking parallels to other deities worshipped in Hellenistic religion, specifically to the cult of Dionysus in the Greek mystery religions [comma missing] and with the Buddha." since modern scholarship as a whole notes no such thing about Dionysus, and with Buddha, that would be fringe among fringe. At least the Buddha nonsense could go. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

---

That's pretty funny - I had never heard of "pastafarianism" :-) And yes, Apparently, this "crappy" article is an attempt by some religious-minded types to counter some of the literature that is contrary to their beliefs.

It seems pretty clear that there are some general connections with Hellenistic beliefs (heaven and hell, immediate afterlife in one of those spiritual realms versus the "sleep of death" while waiting for a mass resurrection of God's people and the start of his righteous kingdom on earth). And from what I have read, it is also apparent that there are some connections to "Osiris-Dionysus" in particular (turning water into wine, the anointment of Jesus, the eucharist ritual, etc.)... But I don't see a parallel between Christian beliefs and Buddhism, or between the life of Jesus and the life of Buddha.

I am not in a position to espouse the idea of a link to Hellenistic beliefs, but I am certainly not the first or only person to have noted such a possibility. And if an article is supposed to be about "Jesus and Comparative Mythology" (The story of Jesus/Christian beliefs, compared to similar Pagan deities and beliefs), then a section that is titled "New Testament Narrative" should at least have some relevance to the rest of the article (such as note the portions of the NT narrative that might have resulted from such links).

PS: If you have any interest in what the gospels actually say, and in what the first gospel most likely said (and in what ways, and why the experts got it all wrong), you should go to Amazon and check out: "Did Jesus Really Say That?!! - A Restoration of the First Gospel" (or at least download the free sample for Kindle).76.28.177.80 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello 76.28.177.80, unfortunately referring us on Talk to a self-published source (with all respect to Mr. Alan Barber) is not the way to progress on Wikipedia. these edits were rightly reverted. The article is rubbish, yes, but it won't be improved by more IPs adding more WP:OR. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia then please register, read up on Wikipedia WP:sources etc. and then slowly start to contribute. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Badly organised

this page is badly organised, there should be clear cut table and lists for similarities between (Christian Jesus,Islamic Jesus,Jewish Jesus) and Horus and mythat etc for people to decide if the similarities are random or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambelland (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. The Abrahamic religions different views of Jesus are covered in the Jesus article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And we can't decide what is similar, that's original research. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

original research tags

Added original research tag to the statement: "Among the comparanda, observation of mere mythic universals or "archetypes" needs to be distinguished from claims of historical influence, or common historical origin. Only when features can be shown to be parallel in highly specific detail can a common origin be assumed."

Samuel Sandmel does not make any of these statements in the citation given. Sandmel's argument in the essay was "The key word in my essay is extravagance. I am speaking words of caution about exaggerations about the parallels".

This may not be the same as asking for "highly specific detail". Moreover Sandmel seems like someone associated with Society of Biblical Literature. Does it not violate NPOV as the source might be biased? --Alex (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Horus Comparisons

Changed some very subjective text that doesn't seem to belong in the Ancient Egypt area. Starting with "Most contemporary Egyptologists believe these parallels are not true and are pseudo-scientific," two of the references are dead, and every other reference offers no facts that supports the statement that precedes it.

Next the wiki points out that "W. Ward Gasque conducted a world-wide poll of twenty leading Egyptologists to verify if there was any academic support for these claims. The scholars were unanimous in dismissing the claimed parallels." In looking at the reference, the only time the Egyptologists ("leading" according to the author) were unanimous was in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ. While nothing in the reference indicates that they were unanimous on any other aspect of the claims Gasque attempted to dispute, apparently someone felt inclined to write that they were unanimous in disputing all claims. The reference itself is devoid of certain facts (such as Alvin Boyd Kuhn having a Phd).

The subjective writing for this wiki is most obvious with the comment "Although considered fringe pseudo-science, Massey's views..." That sort of wording simply doesn't belong. 184.46.93.221 (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that sort of wording does belong. We are obliged to point out when views are marginal or "fringe". I've no idea what you mean by "The reference itself is devoid of certain facts (such as Alvin Boyd Kuhn having a Phd)." We do not gratuitously list people's degrees. Dead links do not invalidate references. I will have a look at the text, however there is no doubt that Massey's views are disregarded by modern Egyptologists. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You can argue that anyone's views are disregarded by scholars. But it's misleading to suggest that "most" disagree with him when there's no evidence supporting that statement. The reference in question paints Kuhn as being no more than high school teacher, as opposed to being a scholar with a doctorate. In any case, it's one thing to point out that some people disagree with Massey, it's another thing entirely to add misleading text to a wiki when the reference clearly doesn't support the statement that precedes the citation. There's an awful lot of Christian bias and spin going on with the misuse of referenced material. 184.46.93.221 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't argue that anyone's views are disregarded by scholars. You can't say that Einstein's views are disregarded by scholars. IOt is not Christian bias to say that Massey's views are fringe, since you don't need to be a Christian to believe that. Believing wildly unlikely nonsense is usually the bias of religious dogmatists. It's sad when opponents of a religion resort to it. It's like replacing one myth with another instead of with reason. Show me any respected Egyptologist who supports Massey's views. Paul B (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Paul B. I personally did the last edit on that section because the previous version was MUCH MUCH worse. If the reference that the anon editor speaks of does not mention anything about the "concensus" that is on the page, then that needs to be fixed, however the context remains the same - much of the "Jesus is really just Christians taking "X" from this mythology" is largely made up of atheists grasping at straws. "The Mother & Child Dieties" section is a perfect example - isn't it really saying that since Isis is the "only" mother in anctient times, then she has to be the model for Mary? If not, what's the point? Also I'm not really sure what the "Child Dieties" section is trying to say. Christ isn't a "Child Diety" so at the very least the section heading isn't correct and the text talks about Shed being a model for an Egyptian savior - this could describe "any" mythological diety - people were always praying to their personal gods for safety and health - that was the point of HAVING a god. This is the identical kind of nonsense that Christians are accused of - making giant leaps in judgement about something that is out of context or can't be proven. So either these sections are really poorly written or I'm missing something important. Ckruschke (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Bad article nomination?

Is there a BA nomination process? This article is so full of original research, error after error it is laughable. And it has advert links in it, say:

There has been speculation that Jesus lived in India for a while. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness has stated that it sees Krishna/Vishnu as similar to Jesus and a good alternative. Among some Hindus, Jesus is seen as a shaktavesha avatar, or an empowered incarnation

The first sentence is flatly rejected by scholars. What scholarship says is:

• Robert Van Voorst states that modern scholarship has "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India contain "nothing of value". Marcus Borg states that the suggestions that an adult Jesus traveled to Egypt or India and came into contact with Buddhism are "without historical foundation". Although modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha have been drawn, these comparisons emerged after missionary contacts in the 19th century, and there is no historically reliable evidence of contacts between Buddhism and Jesus during his life.

And the Society of Consciousness maybe a subconscious spam link, who knows...

The Buddhism section has a 1873 and a 1906 reference... Both predate WWI and are outdated non-WP:RS items.

Even a statement within the lede has a citation needed tag on it! And the Old Testament section and the single Q statement there and the Isiah assumption is both non-representative of scholarly views, and WP:OR.

And the list goes on.... This needs a rewrite by someone - myself excluded. History2007 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

On that note, I took another look and I do not even know why the sections are what they are and there seems to be confusion all around. The title of the article is "comparative mythology" and there is a section on that. But it is treated on the same level as other items, and what gets compared is not clearly structured. There are a few elements to compare to:

• Greco-Roman items and their pagan practices/beliefs
• Egyptian items and analogies etc.
• Buddhist and Hindu belief systems

I would bundle the Mithraic elements within the Roman as a subsection given that they were 1st/2nd century and not very old like the Egyptian items. The Egyptian section is just loaded, loaded with WP:OR and uses texts about Egypt that have no references to Christianity, but juxtaposes them to draw analogies that are not present in the sources. That is just pure WP:OR. And using the great, great scholarship of Bill Maher is jus breathtaking. Where does Maher teach? Oxford? Harvard? Stanford? Or the comedy channel? The sourcing in this article is a sad joke. Just a joke.

The issue of the Old Testament is a very different game, because early Christianity directly quoted the OT anyway, and the NT inherently refers to the OT. So that needs a small section, but is really not a big issue here, and belongs in the Christianity and Judaism article. There is plenty of material of a far higher quality in that article and there is no point in doing a botched representation of that. It just needs a smaller section with a Main link there.

Then there is a section that tries to repeat the Christ myth theory page, but again does not do a good job at all. And this article seems to have been stuck during the Calvin Coolidge administration, and keeps using sources from 1927. Those are no longer WP:RS and were outdated long before Wikipedia stared. I think that should also become just a higher quality shorter section with a Main to Christ Myth theory.

If that is done, the confusion index here will drop. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, just a note that I have now cleaned it up, added sources, etc. and removed the tags History2007 (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Unclear

Opinions of a mythical Christ originate in the late 18th century with Charles François Dupuis.[59] In works published in the 1790s, both argued...

Who are "both" in this context? --Syzygy (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they meant to say Dupuis and Volney. But that section is full of larger errors anyway, e.g. it thinks Bauer was the first academic, but in fact Bauer picked up on the works of Strauss who had presented formal arguments earlier. I may as well touch that section up, remove WP:OR etc. anyway... History2007 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Popular comparisons of Horus and Jesus: Zeitgeist and Religulous

In the videos Zeitgeist and Religulous, we find lists comparing Horus and Jesus. However, no mention of that is made in the article (or here in Talk). I'd like to see those lists either substantiated or refuted. Maybe such would require a separate article. Is there one? After I saw one or the other video (or both), I tried to find either confirmation or refutation online, but was unsuccessful at the time. Perhaps there are historically-based point-by-point discussions (not just people arguing) about those that editors here can point us to? LInks? :) Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an earlier version of this article [1]...Modernist (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks Modernist! Now if I can read about each point in the videos' two lists.... :) Misty MH (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

e/c The vidoes are not scholarly works. In fact, that entire subject has been ruled by confusion for about a century. Massey, who started it was so confused that he thought Herod was based on the myth of Herrut, etc. There are modern authors like Harpur (who draws on Massey), but disagreements are more common that agreements and there is no way to test these things anyway. The only test is when people make dramatic errors like those of Massey about names, dates etc. Wells has also written about analogies, but he is a professor of German, and MacLeod disagrees, etc. The thing to remember is that the confusion is two fold, sometimes they compare Jesus to the child Horus because of his conception, sometime they compare Jesus to the father of Horus, i.e. Osiris because he semi-resurrected. Not that I can be bothered to work on this topic here any more, but do not expect rigor in this subject. From my study of the subject, most authors in the field seem to have had 5 beers too many when they write on the topic. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You could be right about the beers, History2007! I was hoping more for an actual point-by-point addressing of each thing listed in their videos. Some Egyptologist may be shaking her head right now, going, "I've got to address that list!" I'd take each point, and then address it by comparing it with all that is extant regarding Horus. (I presume I am remembering correctly, and that those lists didn't say Osiris!) :-) Misty MH (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also please see this above regarding tables. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone here could actually create a separate article that focuses on each point in both of those lists (Zeitgeist and Religulous). Anyone Egypt- and Horus-savvy enough? It'll need Citations! :D Misty MH (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, was Massey's comparison between Herod and Herrut based on aspects of Herod that are not accounted by historical sources, such as Herod's personality that somehow transfered from Herrut? This would be interesting to mention... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.79.77 (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

All indications are that Massey was hardly aware of the use of historical sources in any case. In this case he seems to have just matched the names at the phonetic level. If you read through Massey you will see how he leaps from conclusion to conclusion. And sources indicate that scholarship does not take his work seriously. But he was there first, so started the discussions and is known and noted for that, not the solidity of his research. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist parallels

Any reason why there is no mention of Buddha's birth in this article? Seems pertinent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(mother_of_Buddha) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.79.77 (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a Main link anyway, and the birth story comparisons are perhaps the weakest parallels and generally considered fringe. History2007 (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how weakness and strength in parallels are measured, and therefore relevance in mentioning them in the article. Also, what are the criteria for classifying information/theory as "fringe?" I'm not being argumentative; I just want to know how one determines what goes in the article and what doesn't.

If the purpose of the article is to articulate the features of the Christ figure (as it has evolved) in Christian culture and how those features parallel with other religious/mythical/archetypal figures before and after the time of the historical Jesus, I would think that the birth story in the Gospel of Luke, which seems a very prominent aspect of the mythical Jesus figure, would be relevant to discuss parallels to. Lehel Kovach (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is actually pretty straightforward. Please see WP:Fringe theories and WP:Due that states:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Also please see WP:Secondary, WP:OR and WP:RS. So you need to have a few "mainstream WP:RS" references to draw the parallel. Reading the Bible and Buddah's birth stories by ourselves is WP:OR. So some respected scholar" needs to say that there was a historical connection. And if there are respected scholars that say there was none, then it goes the other way. That is all. And from everything we have seen the Greek and Egyptian analogies have had the most ink, with the Buddhist items mostly rejected out of hand by scholars in general, although a few have made suggestions in the 19th century. The suggestion by Elaine Pagels is that the possibility that Buddhism may have influenced Gnostics, then the Christians "should be studied" but she does not support it herself, and those were post New Testament anyway. And by the way, the nativity stories in Luke are generally assumed as non-central to the lifestory of Jesus, in that the essential elements such as teachings, crucifixion, atonement etc. were already in the Pauline Epistles around 50-60 AD anyway - and some scholars point to pre-Pauline creeds as well. So I am afraid your assumption of the order of he development path of the gospel stories does not match the scholarly view, the Markan priority issues, Q source, etc. But that is another issue, yet an indication of the need not to do our own reasoning, in any case. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Editor

At present we've got a persistent IP editor adding unsourced content to this and another article. Feel free to revert and block on site, no additional warnings required. If the editor persists in IP hopping, then I'll protect the article, but I'd rather not if it can be avoided. Rklawton (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Half This Article Reads Like a Christian Apology

If you can't handle the subject matter because you're a bible-thumper closed to research and speculation, then leave the page alone. This isn't the "Refute Jesus is Mythology" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.0.20 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually per WP:NOR "speculation" is not ok in Wikipedia. That is policy, across the board. And you should probably take a look at WP:JDLI as well. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the vast majority of scholars that deal with this issue are Christian apologetics (sadly). To History2007, the entire field of Jesus is mostly speculation as is the nature of ancient history, and especially in terms of religious entities. DonChris (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The claims in the article such as "that first century monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan myths" would seem to be plainly false. Because there is considerable motive for bias in such claims, the disposition (i.e. potential for bias) of the source of those claims should be stated in the article. The Jewish culture was greatly affected by surrounding nations, and there is little reason at all to believe they 'would not have been open' to pagan mythology.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I always thought this page was pretty fair. If you think a statement is baseless and without reference, flag it. I also disagree with DonChris - most of the scholar is this area are NOT Christian apologetics. Even the authors on Christian historical/archeological peer-reviewed journals are split pretty evenly among those that believe the Bible is true and those that believe that most of it is allegorical. Beyond that, scholarship in this area has been driven by non-Christians for almost 200 yrs. Ckruschke (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

One look at the introduction tells me there's a problem here. What we're seeing in this introduction is Christian exceptionalism; it's unacademic to refuse to acknowledge that the cluster of motifs surrounding this particular figure are not well mirrored elsewhere, and quite strongly so. As these articles are generally a war zone, I can't take the time to get involved, but it's clear to me that at least the introduction needs a rewrite. I haven't much looked at the rest of the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2014

In the Overview, the phrase "and most scholars agree that any such historical influence is entirely implausible given that first century monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan stories." implies that the "entire implausibility" of pagan influence is a FACT, to which "most scholars agree". A more unbiased statement would be "any such historical influence would be entirely implausible", although the rest of the article argues against such uniqueness and isolation of the N.T. writers. Marcostelias (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable simply to remove the word "entirely"? The text would then become: "... and most scholars agree that any such historical influence is entirely implausible given that first century monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan stories." TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Err ... User:TechBear's proposal, still includes "entirely" - I assume this was meant to read "... and most scholars agree that any such historical influence is implausible given that first century monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan stories." ? - is this acceptable? - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh... yeah. That's what I meant. Sorry about that. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: What do the sources actually say? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. (Note that this message is purely procedural; if consensus is established for the change, then it may be implemented) Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

POV at Christ Myth Theory

This section is a summary of the main article Christ Myth Theory. The definition of the CMT is currently disputed, and this article is carrying a definition which is not as per the reliable sources. Please see the talk page at Christ Myth Theory for the specific details of the dispute. Wdford (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ERROR: "there is no evidence of a historical influence by the pagan myths such as dying and rising gods on the authors of the New Testament"

Of COURSE there is no evidence about the NT authors. What this neat obfuscatory technique does is distract from whence the pagan influence MAY have come. And of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Some open minds might be useful:

1) Abraham, who hailed from Ur in Sumer in Mesopotamia in Iraq -- who KNOWS what gods he was exposed to and what he took with him and discarded en route from Iraq to the Jerusalem Metropolitan area and monotheism.

2) The Jews have a lot of experience with Egypt: Moses, the Red Sea thing, who knows what Egyptian gods might have crossed the Red Sea with them.

3) The Jews also had a lot of exposure to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar.

4) The "Wise Men from the East" suggest Zoroastrian influence on Christianity -- and perhaps on the Hebrew religion. Zoroastrianism (Zarathustra) is also an apocalyptic religion based in never-ending battled between good and evil and could have influence both the Hebrew and Christian religions as well as Islam. Or erhaps this is a meme which springs forth eternal unbidden in all human religions?

5) The clincher: the snake tempts Eve with the fruit by telling her "ye will be as gods" -- incorrectly translated in most accounts as "ye shall surely not die"..."Lethomme (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kessler on pagan monotheism"

You have made your Bold move, which has been Reverted by two different wikipedians and now needs to be Discussed first before it can be added back. This is standard Wikipedia policy and cannot be negotiated. Edit-warring will not be tolerated and may lead to a block. It doesn't matter whether you are right or not, you need to establish consensus first. The correct place to bring up arguments is right here on Talk, not in further edit summaries. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. We have an unpublished paper which isn't available at the link and doesn't seem to be discussed by other scholars. It wasn't published in either of the books that came out of the symposium.[2] and [3]. Does anyone still want to argue it meets WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the merits, just the procedure. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you and the others involved to comment on the merit. You reinstated it twice - looks like you were editwarring to enforce BRD, which is a guideline, not a rule. I'm hoping User:StAnselm will read the above and remove it. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I was annoyed by the repeated reversion against the wishes of two editors without discussing it first. It doesn't matter if he was right on substance, I just wanted to have the discussion first. We're now having that discussion. If you're correct, then the source is not reliable and I don't object to its deletion. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's easy to show that Kessler wasn't published in the books from ths Symposium. Which explains why his idea isn't discussed by others. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This entire article is less about "Jesus Christ in comparative mythology" than a dogmatic dismissal of all attempts to note (in a scholarly manner) that there are indeed mythic parallels between Christianity and other religions. Derrick Chapman 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

Please respond at the bottom if you expect anyone to respond to your posts. This article discusses similarities and differences (see Parallelomania for why differences must be discussed), instead of discussing only one or the other in some attempt to prove something. Please present evidence when you make accusations, otherwise they come off as disingenuous. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

IN AN EFFORT TO PROVE SOMETHING

I refer to the pattern followed by most paragraphs, in which a parallel is noted, then dismissed with a sentence effectively saying most Biblical scholars refute the parallel. Derrick Chapman 22:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

This page has no place here

This page needs to be taken down or heavily edited, it speaks from an obviously biased perspective that ignores a large body of research, including acknowledged historical documents that contain similarities to the Jesus mythos. Also overexaggerates consensus among non-affiliated researchers. No mention anywhere of the stories with major similarities that do overlap and pre-date. Probably best to just take it down.

Agree at least as far as 'heavily editing', although I wonder if the material is not repeated or could be dispersed among several of the linked articles in 'See Also.'

One obvious "elephant in the room" is that the article pushes the argument that "first century monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to pagan myths." This ignores counter-arguments that:

• Judaism is widely regarded as a development from the pagan polytheistic Canaanite religion and must contain pagan elements;
• Jewish monotheism was not fully established until much later than suggested by the now-extant Jewish texts, written by monotheists who won the argument and suppressed dissenting views;
• The whole region had been under Greek hegemony for centuries;
• Christianity as it developed in the 1st century was largely shaped by (and, in my own opinion, in the mind of) one Saul aka Paul raised in the Pagan-dedicated city of Tarsus (Bel-Tarshish) in Asia Minor, who successfully marginalized the Galilean Jews, including Jesus' relatives (see the Ebionites).

The balance of this article badly need redressing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

'Pagan' does not mean 'non Christian'

An editor is trying to assert that 'pagan' simply means 'non-Christian', which makes the sentence they are editing self-contradictory. Early Christians observed Jewish customs, which are inherently non-Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor (who is almost certainly either a sock or a sock-master, see discussion here here and here is using Wikipedia to push for the WP:truth, and constantly ignore all consensuses. This behavior is repeated across several articles related to the same topic.Jeppiz (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing/Identical content

The passage about Porters stance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#Ancient_Egypt) is identical to one on the Gerald Massey Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Massey#Criticism). This may constitute Close Paraphrasing as described in the wikipedia guidelines, although it is not paraphrased, but more or less identical. As one cannot edit this article, maybe an admin can look over this issue. (79.255.192.47 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC))

Requested move 18 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. In a descriptive title like this one, we normally use the parent article's title, unless it would be confusing in context. Here, it is difficult to even imagine a scenario where a person would find Jesus to be ambiguous without Christ appended.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology → Jesus in comparative mythology – I would've thought this would be sufficiently uncontroversial to do it myself, but a move to this title was reverted a few years ago, referring to talk page discussion. There hasn't been an RM, though some discussion in Archive 1 shows the rationale for "Christ" being that the article discusses Jesus as Messiah. But so do many Jesus articles. I don't think that's a good reason to deviate from the parent article, Jesus, or WP:CONCISE. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support this move. The main article is Jesus and it is the primary topic for than name. The disambiguation term "Jesus Christ" is unnecessary. What other Jesus is relevant to comparative mythology? Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious, really. StAnselm (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONPRIME. Subtopics follow the title format of their parent topics. bd2412 T 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus in comparative mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421032154/http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/classics/conferences/pagan_monotheism/abstracts.html to http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/classics/conferences/pagan_monotheism/abstracts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Source Vetting and the Challenges of Writing an Article on a Living Religion

Right now this article does its damnedest to portray Christianity as an exceptional religion that somehow appeared in a vacuum, exactly followed it scriptural narrative, and had no influence from the world around it. It stands as an example of how writing about Christianity in the west presents unique challenges: How many of these "scholarly sources" are in fact defenses of the religion—in this case Christianity—that the author holds? How many of these sources are from Christian institutions? How many of these sources are actually from people working in relevant fields, such as folkloristics, rather than theology and religious studies? This is a real issue with this article as well as Christ myth theory, another minefield of an article. Right now this article is a total mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You are bang on the money :bloodofox:! This article is a joke. Every single opening paragraph ends with a statement that "most historians disagree ..." or similar. The citations are rubbish; they state things like "surely everyone agrees ...", while others are just the opinion of a single person (e.g. Richard Carrier), who was obviously included purely on the grounds that he subscribes to the views presented in the article. The reasoning being that if Richard even agrees, then it must be true! Disaster.

Why do these editors insist on helping the critics of Wikipedia. If we cannot write (or let others write) objectively about things we don't necessarily agree with, then WP will never be taken seriously.

There should be one "Critics" section at the bottom of this article in which objections to the Jesus Myth theory could be placed, with their citations properly reviewed! Imagine if every WP article was like this one, and you were trying to read about the moon landing for example, and were constantly interrupted with advertising from critics. HappyGod (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. This is the single worst article I've read on Wikipedia. No attempt is made at all to adopt a neutral point of view. It's nonsensical. Liamcalling (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to get too echo-ey here, but have to agree with the above. I was curious about the subject, came here, and am left feeling like I need to look elsewhere to get any sort of useful academic view on the subject. 92.238.177.129 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sandmel

@Bloodofox: Sandmel's criticism of comparisons between Jesus and pagan figures is not at all fringe. I hope I do not offend you when I say that I am getting a distinct impression that you are very unfamiliar with New Testament scholarship. The fact is that it is generally agreed that pagan influence on Christianity comes only from the later strata of the religion, after it had become a predominantly Gentile religion largely detached from its original Jewish roots (a shift which happened in the late first century after the Synoptic Gospels were written). Thus, the gospels of Mark and Matthew are usually thought to be either totally free from pagan influence or, if there are pagan influences in them, they are not observable. Instead, the primary influence on them is Jewish tradition. The Gospel of Matthew in particular is known for its markedly Jewish character and it was at one point used by the Ebionites, an early sect of Judaizing Christians. The Gospel of Luke is a bit more of an open question, with some scholars arguing that, in this gospel, Jesus may be starting to show some features of a pagan divine-man; this is, of course, still disputed. The Gospel of John was definitely influenced by Platonism and it may have also been influenced to some extent by Greco-Roman paganism, though even this is still hotly disputed. The parallels between Dionysus and the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of John that you refer to are indeed a legitimate area of scholarly inquiry, but it is by no means widely accepted that the Gospel of John was influenced by Dionysus. (Indeed, many scholars have proposed equally credible explanations that the wine imagery in the gospel may simply be based on passages from the Old Testament.)

Furthermore, what Sandmel is actually criticizing is not the study of legitimate pagan influence on later Christianity, but rather the massive quantity of material that has been produced - primarily by a regrettable strand of remarkably shoddy scholarship in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as some more recent writings produced by amateurs - adducing wildly exaggerated parallels to Jesus based on even slightest superficial similarities (or even sometimes completely nonexistent ones). The "parallelomania" he describes has largely been expelled from mainstream scholarship, but it is still very common among supporters of the fringe Christ Myth theory, who often invent and exaggerate parallels far beyond reality. One representative example of this trend described by Maurice Casey is the notion propounded by some Christ Myth theorists that the word "Christ" is somehow derived from the Sanskrit name of the Hindu god Krishna, despite the fact that "Christ" is an ordinary Greek word meaning "anointed one" that existed long before Jesus and it already has a completely mundane etymology unrelated to Krishna. Another example is the interpretation of a story in which Krishna is killed by being shot through the heel as some kind of crucifixion. Even for the deities who may have legitimately influenced later Christian views on Jesus, there are still all kinds of wild speculations. For instance, there is credible reason to think that Egyptian portrayals of Isis nursing Horus may have influenced Christian depictions of the Virgin Mary nursing Jesus, but, aside from this (at least as far as I am currently aware), there is no evidence to support the idea that any of the other supposed parallels between them that have been propounded over the years thanks to the humorous ineptitude of Gerald Massey have any veracity behind them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind this article is still very much a work in progress. Any issues you see in the current version may very well be ones that I am aware of and am planning to address in further revisions. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll sidestep what appears to be a personal attack and, again, ask that you look closely at what I've written. First, the section from the article reads as follows:

In a 1962 article, Samuel Sandmel, a Jewish rabbi and professor of Bible and Hellenistic literature at the Hebrew Union College, criticizes attempts to argue that the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels was directly influenced by pagan mythological figures, stating that such arguments are flawed and based solely on vague similarities.

This includes the Gospel of John. We then launch into a section discussing how scholars have identified strong parallels with preexisting narratives regarding Dionysus in the very same gospel. Sandmel is indeed the odd man out here. This stuff from Sandmel used to be in the lead of the article. I don't see why this obscure article from the 1960s is still so prominently positioned in the article.

In fact, I'd argue that a lot of the defenses against Christ-as-entirely-myth stuff needs to be sectioned off into its own article. This isn't what this article is about, and right now the article looks like more of an attack on that position than a straightforward discussion of narratives surrounding Jesus.

Third, the current structure of the article is confusing for the author and, I'd argue, wrong-headed. We need to be approaching narratives regarding Jesus in a chronological manner, from early non-biblical accounts, to biblical accounts, to medieval folklore, and into modern popular culture, tackling topics like attempts at modern era Christians to remove what they deem to be the "myth" versus "fact", full-throttle evangelical stuff, and pop culture stuff like Zeitgeist. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize for my initial comment; you have done a fantastic job with all our Norse mythology articles and I was merely stating that the historical background of the New Testament does not seem to be your area of expertise. My plan from the very beginning has been to write this article primarily as a history of mythological developments and influences on Christian views of Jesus in chronological order with a section at the end about general parallels (i.e. similarities that are probably not the result of direct influence) at the end. My writing process is a bit disorganized, however, and I tend to write articles a few paragraphs at a time, adding material in as I go along. The current structure is a temporary stand-in until I compose more material to fill in the parts that are missing. I think that it will be necessary to refute the Christ Myth theory in some places, since that is what most people will jump to when they hear "Jesus in comparative mythology," but I will try to limit mention of it. (It is worth noting that the original title of this article was "Jesus as myth" and it was essentially a redundant fork of the article Christ Myth theory, which is why the previous revision of the article talked about the Christ Myth theory so much.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(wandering in from Egypt) If I may interject something, Katolophyromai's characterization of NT scholarship seems to be correct, based on my very general understanding of it, but I'd like to point out a possible source that pushes back a little against the scholarly consensus: Iesus Deus (2014) by M. David Litwa. I've never gotten around to reading it, and not every connection between Jesus and paganism is "mythology" per se, but it does at least seem to address the nativity stories' resemblance to divine birth myths. And it's not a fringe book, having been reviewed by James Dunn and Larry Hurtado. Litwa's views may not be a significant enough minority viewpoint to include here—you'd have to know the field better than I do in order to say—but I thought it was worth mentioning. A. Parrot (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for Review of Neutrality

Just an anonymous reader browsing, but I agree with the earlier talk. Worst bias I have personally ever seen on Wikipedia. There is a noticeable lack of inclusion of the mythology of a variety of religions in addition to previously noted issues. If this is an article attempting to compare the mythological life of christ to the lives of other god/martyr figures throughout history, a broader series of topics than the 6 most cherrypicked and disputable instances might be a good idea. Fully agreee with below talk, this article reads like scholars nearly universally agree christ was unique and christianity didn't borrow any themes from his life from other places. That's simply not factual in any way whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.92.31 (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The examples described in this article are the ones that are most commonly cited by supporters of the Christ Myth theory, which has been universally rejected by mainstream scholarship. Real scholars have examined stories about Jesus in the context of comparative mythology, but they agree on several factors:

1. Behind all the mythological elaborations, Jesus was a real historical figure, which means that the basic details of his life are historical, not mythological (i.e. he really did come from Nazareth, he really was baptized by John the Baptist, he really was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate, and so on).
2. Early Christians drew on Jewish mythology in their creation of new stories about Jesus, not on pagan myths. For example, the reason why Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew gives his first sermon on a mountain, but, in the Gospel of Luke, he gives it on a plain, is because the Gospel of Matthew is intentionally trying to portray Jesus as a "new Moses" and, according to the Book of Exodus, Moses received the Ten Commandments atop Mount Sinai. The flight into Egypt from the Gospel of Matthew and subsequent return to Judaea is clearly modeled on the story of the Exodus. Likewise, the story of the Annunciation from the Gospel of Luke is based on the account in the Book of Judges where the Angel of the Lord tells Samson's mother about the coming birth of her son, Samson.

If we want to improve this article, it should focus less on the whole "Christ Myth" conspiracy theory that Jesus was actually secretly a pagan god-man who was adapted by early Christians (an idea which has been rejected by scholars) and instead focus on how early Christians modeled some of their stories about Jesus on stories found in the Old Testament. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice to let everyone know that I am planning on probably significantly revising much of this article and expanding it. I do not know how soon this will be or how long it will take, because I am probably going to be much busier for the next month or so than I have been for the past few months, which means I will most likely have less time to spend editing here on Wikipedia. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Katolophyromai. I recommend rewriting this article from scratch. It's not worth your time now (or in the future) to deal with the many barbed problems that the current article presents and promotes. I also suggest that you look first and foremost to classicists and anthropologists of religion for information on this topic rather than, say, theologians. Comparisons between New Testament narratives surrounding Jesus and, say, Dionysus and Prometheus are not at all uncommon, and would be (and are) pretty obvious to a classical audience (or an audience trained in classical studies). Introductory texts in some current classical studies programs make the comparisons pretty clear as well.

For example, ignoring my bookshelf, a quick Google Books search returns scores scholars in classical studies mentioning strong correspondences between Jesus and Dionysus in peer-reviewed works published by university presses (just a quick example: "The correspondence of Christianity and mystery religions of antiquity are perhaps more startling than their differences. Orpheus and Christ share attributes in the early centuries of our era, Dionysus has most in common with the figure of Christ ... Indeed, the association of Christ with the vine frequently led to the use of the myths and attributes of Dionysus in early Christian iconography." (link)). After all, syncretism and diffusion are simply facts of human life.

Currently, Wikipedia is treating this as pretty fringe topic — largely a result of leaning on theologians rather than, say, classicists — and it shouldn't stay that way. We also need a topic discussing what influence this constant discourse has had since, say, the Enlightenment. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just pulled a section on divine birth. It seemed to be defending something but it didn't come out and say what it was: was the goal to highlight Jesus's birth from a sky god — Yahweh — and Mary, a mortal woman, as somehow incomparable to the union of Zeus and Semele that produced Dionysus? Of course, Dionysus narratives are frequently compared to Jesus narratives in classical studies, including narratives about their births and early lives. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The section is not "defending" anything. It is talking about similarities and differences between Jesus and classical mythology. The story of the virgin birth of Jesus was invented independently by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (or the independent sources they relied upon) in order to fulfill the mistranslated Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:14, which states that a "virgin" (parthenos) will conceive and give birth to a son. The story is rooted in Jewish tradition, not Greek mythology. Early Christians believed that Jesus was conceived without sexual intercourse, which is completely different from how demigods in classical mythology were typically conceived: as the result of a physical union between an anthropomorphic god and a mortal woman. I am planning to add an explanation of the story's Jewish background to the article, but I have not had time yet.

I do not know what your background or intentions are, but there is an enormous quantity of fringe material that has been written on this subject, mostly by untrained amateurs, based on extremely vague and often exaggerated similarities. I certainly will not deny that Christian perceptions of Jesus (especially in later times) were influenced by pagan mythology, but there are a lot of comparisons out there that simply are not valid and are not accepted by mainstream scholars. It will be necessary to provide rebuttals.

In reply to your earlier comment about not using "theologians" as sources, I will briefly comment that the word "theologian" is a highly specific term which fringe theorists have often misapplied as a pejorative to anyone who studies the New Testament, including - for completely inexplicable reasons - critical New Testament historians of the higher criticism variety, who have, ironically, been denigrated for over a century by evangelical Christian apologists as the emissaries of Satan sent to discredit the scriptures. I will be using classical scholars as sources in this article (I already have quite extensively), but, for the parts dealing with the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels I will be relying primarily on reputable New Testament scholars, who are, after all, the ones who have spent their lives studying this subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, also, (This is really nitpicky, but it will bother me if I do not say it.) Yahweh was not a "sky god"; he was a national god, which is a kind of deity specific to the ancient Near East. Although Yahweh did eventually absorb some sky god aspects from the chief god El and the storm god Baal, these were always secondary to his primary role as the national protector of the people of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

First, the section I remove made not a single mention of Jesus. I ask for the courtesy of close attention to what I'm doing and saying. As I said, scholars frequently discuss the many shared similarities between narratives surrounding the lives of Dionysus and Jesus. After all, the New Testament is a byproduct of the classical world, and the circumstances of Dionysus's birth are so unique that the comparison between the two are obvious. A sky god impregnating a mortal woman and producing a demigod was hardly unknown in the classical world, the exact mechanisms in this particular narrative aside. There's plenty of scholarship pointing this out to draw from for this article.

And so follows my second point: I did not say that we should not cite theologians. I said we should be focused on classicists and I'm glad we agree on that point. However, I need to point out that the term theologian is in fact used in the academic world, and there's ultimately a big difference between a theologian and a classicist. This difference is amplified when a theologian is strongly affiliated with, say, an institution like Liberty University. We should be noting scholar backgrounds and identities wherever possible.

As anyone who has followed my work here for the past decade or so knows, I don't bother to discuss fringe sources unless I'm removing them or inserting material discussing them. This is why you'll note that I repeatedly mention classical studies and not someone on the internet :).

Regarding Yahweh — regardless of earlier strata, by this point the concept of Yahweh was long intermixed with El and other notable contemporaries, and thus the sky associations are pretty clearly pronounced. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph you removed was the beginning of one of the new sections I am starting. I had not had a chance yet to fully develop it.

I did not say that "theologian" was not a real academic term; it is very much so. I was just saying that it has often been misapplied by people who are unaware of New Testament historical criticism, which is the most relevant field for much of the information in this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for jumping the gun there, in that case. If you're developing paragraphs in a draft page, I'd be glad to help out where and when possible, by the way. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Another point that might be worth making is that it is only in the later gospels that Jesus first becomes seen as the literal "son of God." He is described as the "son of God" in the earlier gospels, but this is intended figuratively, in the same way that King David is described as the "son of God" in the Book of Psalms. Jews during this time period applied the title to anyone who was seen as especially close to God or like a son to Him, but they did not believe that He was actually capable of having literal offspring. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Heavy Reliance on Bart D. Ehrman

I'm noticing a very heavy reliance on works by Bart D. Ehrman, a theologian. This is particularly notable so far in our section on Mithras. Ehrman is by no means a specialist on the topic of Mithras and classical mystery cults, and I believe that we should be using superior sources than Ehrman's general audience-aimed book length argument for the historicity of Jesus (Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, notably published by HarperCollins's HarperOne imprint rather than an academic press).

There exists many, many peer-reviewed works by classicists on this topic and the general topic of mystery religions in the classical world and their influence on Christianity, and I see no evident reason to lean so strongly into Ehrman's book. Surely we can do a lot better. Additionally, when scholars interject opinions, we must be very careful about attributing those opinions to maintain neutrality. I've noticed a few incidents where that hasn't been the case so far in this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Ehrman is a widely respected expert on early Christianity who has written dozens of both scholarly and popular works on the subject. He is not a "theologian" in any traditional sense of the word; he is a secular agnostic. In fact, his strongest critics are all Christians who accuse him of being anti-Christian. He describes himself as a "historian," not a "theologian," a descriptor which is clearly borne out by his works, which are almost all about history, rather than theology (which is hardly surprising, considering that he does not believe in God). The worst criticism I have read about him from other scholars is that a few have accused him of merely parroting the scholarly consensus in his popular works, which, for our purposes, is actually a good thing. There is no rational excuse for why he would not be considered a reliable source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Well, looking at Ehrman's CV, it appears that he is indeed a theologian, regardless of how he'd prefer to phrase it (Ehrman, for example, received his PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary). Whatever the case he's certainly not a classicist, and for discussion regarding classical mythology and classical mystery cults, I believe we should be referring to scholars in classical studies, preferably in peer-reviewed works. Currently Ehrman is cited dozens of times in this article. In time, I'll go through the article and bring in superior, peer-reviewed sources to replace Ehrman's general audience book. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

His background is in theology, but he can hardly be considered a "theologian" since he does not believe in any kind of deity and the fundamental assumption behind the entire field of theology is that a Deity of some kind exists. Here is an article Ehrman wrote on his blog about the relationship between Bible criticism and history: [4]. In any case, I will admit it is probably better to cite an expert on Mithraic cult for information about the cult itself, but, for information about the cult's relationship to early Christianity, it is perfectly acceptable, and indeed necessary, to cite scholars on early Christianity. (Ehrman's expertise includes the history of Christianity up to the fourth century, as he himself even mentions in the article I link to here.) I do not understand your insistence that we should only cite classicists and not scholars on early Christianity, since this article is at least equally as much about early Christianity as it is about classical antiquity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm afraid that's not quite accurate. One does not need to maintain any specific religious beliefs to gain entry to any academic field, which includes theology (as controversial as the field may be). For example, see Wikipedia's own category on atheist theologians. Classicists are authorities on classical culture, whereas theology is a far shakier field in this regard. We are therefore wise to turn to classicists when discussing figures such as Mithras or Dionysus, and we should really be sticking to peer-reviewed stuff as a rule of thumb, as I suggest above. The bar is far higher for peer-reviewed works than otherwise, particularly in a field like classical studies. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added citations to a work solely devoted to the Mithraic Cult, published by the Oxford University Press, to support the information in the section. Nonetheless, I still insist that Ehrman is a completely reliable source of information about early Christianity and its relations to other religions. I do not think it should alter his level of credibility depending on whether you happen to consider him a "theologian" or a "historian." (I personally still insist that "historian" is a far more accurate descriptor, since history is what he primarily concerns himself with.)

By the way, you keep talking about "peer-reviewed" works, but technically books do not undergo peer-review; that is only for journal articles. Instead, academic books are checked for accuracy by their respective publishers, not usually by a panel of the author's peers. If the publisher does send a book to be checked by the author's peers, they usually only send out a representative sample, not the whole book. (see, for instance, [5], [6], and [7]). They do undergo a fact-checking process, but it is nothing like a traditional peer-review as most people often think of it. I found this out the hard way also, when another user explained this to me during a particularly intense argument after I mistakenly referred to academic books as undergoing "peer review." I just thought I would let you know this for future reference. I understand perfectly well that you are referring to books published by reputable academic publishers. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I've been through this process with an academic press myself. From experience, your description is correct. The key point is that, generally speaking, beyond that early peer review (which usually consists of a few chapters, an outline, and a few other items), the fact-checking process is generally a lot more thorough than with non-academic presses. Some presses are far more hands-on than others. That said, that initial peer-review can make a big difference in the final product. All things considered, we're best off sticking to peer-reviewed articles wherever possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will agree with that. I understood what you meant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Alan Dundes

@Katolophyromai:, I'd like to thank you for bringing in material by Alan Dundes on this topic. It's something I've been meaning to do. I think we should consider bringing in some of his commentary regarding the approaches of theologians and folklorist neglect of this material, as he makes some unique and very on-topic points. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I am highly skeptical about placing full trust in Dundes for anything, since (1) he is folklorist, not a New Testament scholar or historian of early Christianity (or even a classicist for that matter), and (2) his works interpret essentially everything through a very, very Freudian lens, which sometimes leads him to bizarre, highly fringe conclusions, such as that Jesus's resurrection is, in fact, a symbolic for him regaining an erection and that it represents a triumph over his father and him fulfilling his secret desire to have sex with his mother, the Virgin Mary. Nonetheless, I will see what I can make of him. Some of his work might be useful, if supported by other works. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about Dundes's fondness for psychoanalysis. It's not something I'm particularly fond of myself, and it falls outside of the topic of this article, anyway (it's not exactly comparative mythology).

That said, Dundes remains a major and highly influential figure in folkloristics, and while we shouldn't lean on him at every turn, his comparisons and discussions in the lens of folkloristics (myth being a genre of folklore, after all), merits inclusion. I'll take a closer look at the piece. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think Dundes ought to be fine as a source, as long as he is cited critically and in light of what other scholars have written on the subject. (After all, I already cite Károly Kerényi, whose early work on Greek mythology is terrific, but whose later work sort of went off the Jungian deep end.) I think I will mention Dundes's argument that Jesus fits the mold of an archetypal folk hero, which is mentioned in several of my other sources (although not quite as much as Sandmel's article on "parallelomania", which is mentioned by a considerable number of them as well). I will, however, have to note that other scholars have criticized Dundes's analysis of Jesus as flawed, since he takes unrelated stories from different gospels and meshes them together syncretically without apparently realizing that the four gospels all portray Jesus in radically different ways. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)