Jump to content

Talk:Christ myth theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleChrist myth theory was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2006Articles for deletionKept
February 19, 2010Good article nomineeListed
February 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 3, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 12, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 10, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 20, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

"Fringe," again

@Mark Shaw: please scroll through the archives, before you remove "fringe" again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul knew eyewitnesses

Currently the article says that Paul knew eyewitnesses. The sources base this on Galatians 1:18-19:

"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.

I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."

Nowhere does Paul claim that either Cephas or James were eyewitnesses to Jesus. He refers to multiple Christians as "the Lord's brothers"/ "Brothers of the Lord". I suggest editing the section to be more neutral and closer to the source, and removing the interpretation that these were "eyewitnesses" and simply stating that Paul claims to have spoken to *James and Peter* rather than *eyewitnesses* EmaNyton (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Err, JAmes was an eyewitness, he was Jesus' brother. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bart Ehrman quote is there (Ehrman 2012, pp. 144–146) explaining it. Ramos1990 (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP 58

Ehrman, IP, anti-Christian bias

Again: Ehrman is a reputed scholar, ergo WP:RS, and removing sources from theological publishers because they're Christian is biased itself. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no anti Christian biased but his academic work should be refrenced and not blog posts and books by Harper Collins. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCE may help explain that pretty much publications like newspaper, books, scholalry mongraphs etc are types of RS. Its not just limited to one type of source. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books by Harper Collins and blog posts are not counted as reliable sources. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They absolutely are if they're by a subject-matter expert. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using blog posts as authoratative and presenting theological fanatics as mainstream academic view.. Hmmmmm. Now where have i seen that before 152.58.37.66 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • diff, edit-summary This is not an academic source, but a book published by HarperCollins., removed

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on certain and clear evidence." B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 256-257."

WP:RS are not limited to academic presses; Ehrman is an acknowledged expert;
  • diff, edit-summary This is not an academic source at all, but a book published by a Christian book publisher in Kentucky and therefore heavily biased., removed William R. Herzog, (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, as a reference for the non-controversial statement

The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus, holds that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who lived in 1st-century-AD Roman Judea

to quote User:Ritchie333 from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Christ myth theory, use of blog posts and non-academic sources:

In about 15 seconds, I found this obituary of William Herzog II, who is verified as being a Professor of the New Testament at Yale University. That sounds like a pretty authoritative source, so I completely disagree that citing that book is unacceptable.

Furthermore what makes Westminster John Knox Press inherently "heavily biased"?
  • diff, edit-summary This is a non academic source published by the same publisher and should not have been included in the first place., for the same statement above; see avove;
  • diff, edit-summary Chneged it to better reflect the sources., removed (bold)

The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus

unnecessary and discutable removal;
  • diff, edit-summary This is not an academic source at all, so it's not relevant., removed

Weaver, Walter P. (1999). The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900–1950. Trinity Press International: "The denial of Jesus' historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century."

The same disregard for WP:RS.

All in all, this looks like another unconvincing attempt to push the fringe CmT-narrative. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing any theory and there certainly are sources for the historical Jesus, that is attested but this article is not balanced, and the perspective from Encyclopedia Britannica should be included 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it the wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-Jewish-religion-in-the-1st-century#ref222994
If what the article claim is true, that all modern schoalrship argue for the undisputed historical Jesus, isn't it odd that Encyclopedia Britannica does not? They give a very nuanced picture about the debate which should be implemented in the wiki article.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/12/10/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-jesus.html
Here is another link from University of Sydney. They are one of the top universities in the world. They don't find the question as settled as this article claim. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has this to do with RSn? Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is have to do with the use of sources in this article and the bias. h
H 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and the place to ask if a source is an RS is RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I guess it is here we can discuss incorrect references?
"In the book Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 1-6 I cannot find the claims that are made in this wiki article. Can anyone?
This is from the wiki article:
"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus,"
Can someone find it in the referenced pages?"
Like this.
58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are not saying this is not an RS, you are just asking for the cite to be verified? Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying both. It's not a good source for this, especially since it's incorrectly cited. And I think that Brittanica should be referenced for balance. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it is RSN. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But now we are discussing the it is incorrectly cited and that should be discussed here as I understand it. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is will you then stop challenging it, no, so lets take it to RSn first, and decide iofm thsimis a reliable source. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem unwilling to discuss to make a correct reference. We don't have to decide if it is a reliable source or not at the moment because it doesn't say what is claimed in the article. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that before we tag this as unverified, we need to decide if it is an RS, if it is not, it gets removed anyway. Why are you unwilling to do this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is wrongly cited shouldn't it be corrected? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'University of Sydney'-article is an opinion-piece by Ralph Lataster, a Christ mythicist and not a reliable source on this topic. Maybe not reliable on anything; this is what he spends his time on. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EB-article is about the historical Jesus, not the historicity of Jesus. There's not a single line in it even hinting at a questioning of his historicity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am out of here, goal post shifting is not acceptable so this is A no to whatever edit is now suggested, until I say otherwise. I have waisted enough time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-academic sources

Non-academic sources should be avoided such as blog posts etc, and non-academic books. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To copy Remsense at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Inadequate sources: WP:BLOGS elaborates that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, so what blog is being talked about? Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: that's a very good question, since that was a discussion before at Historicity of Jesus, about Ehrman and Hurtado: diff, diff, Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Ehrman and Hurtado. It looks like this IP os not new. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both look like respected experts. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They definitely are. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can the source at least be properly referenced.
In the book Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 1-6 I cannot find the claims that are made in this wiki article. Can anyone?
This is from the wiki article:
"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus,"
Can someone find it in the referenced pages? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has this to do with either Ehrman or Hurtado? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular book was also discussed and is incorrectly referenced so that's why we are discussing it. Either someone should change the text to better reflect what is written or remove the reference. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this is an extension of the above thread? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topics have floated into each other but unreliable sourcing and incorrect referencing is an issue so will someone fix it or remove the reference? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve still seen no evidence of unreliable sources. Per WP:SPS, a publication by a relevant subject-matter expert is considered reliable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One source is improperly referenced. And why not reference Brittanica for balance? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What will it balance? Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because brittanica is and authoritative source. The way the article is written now is not neutral or balanced. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality ≠ "balanced". We do not have a requirement to provide so-called "balance" in articles. Likewise "biased" ≠ "unreliable". It is very clear that everyone in this discussion understands WP's policies and guidelines on this except you. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am out of here, goal post shifting is not acceptable so this is A no to whatever edit is now suggested, until I say otherwise. I have waisted enough time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in referencing

In the book Herzog, William R. (2005), Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 1-6 I cannot find the claims that are made in this wiki article. Can anyone?
This is from the wiki article:
"The mainstream scholarly consensus, developed in the three quests for the historical Jesus,"
Can someone find it in the referenced pages?
Either it should be fixed and clarified to reflect what is written on the referenced pages or it should be removed.

58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

being discussed above, we do not need three threads on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then can a conclusion be reached and someone fix it? Because the article is protected from edits right now. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not keep making threads until you get your way. Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that noone here seems interesting in actually solving the problem. It is not my way, it is an incorrect reference.The other threads can be deleted, if you want. There's such a heavy bias here. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am out of here, goal post shifting is not acceptable so this is A no to whatever edit is now suggested, until I say otherwise. I have waisted enough time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The goal post is not moved at all. An incorrectly made reference should be corrected. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So will someone adjust it? 58.99.101.165 (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. That there were three quests, for which there is a subsection in the article and a separate, dedicated page to which this page links, is absolutely basic knowledge, akin to 'the sun rises in the east'. References can also also be refefences for just a part of the info in a sentence, in this case the historical existence of Jesus. The idea that his existence is not deemed certain is a fringe-topic in Biblical scholarship, as shown by a long list of quotes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a third party that have been following the debate and I've checked the source myself, it doesn't say what is claimed so it should be changed or deleted, otherwise there is a heavy bias 110.77.200.120 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is frankly ridiculous. 2001:B042:4005:525B:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, if this continues I suggest asking for protection for the talk page at WP:RFPP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck edits by editor evading block. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear the IP is block evading. That's an indication they'll return to WP:BLUDGEON this waste of time after their block expires. I requested protection for the talk page. I would recommend not feeding the trolls since it appears this singularly focused IP is the only one that doesn't understand the consensus here. The page may require protection after their block expires (or their block may need to be extended). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support PP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of blog posts as sources

BLOCK EVASION
Closing discussion started by editor evading block. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think blog posts as references for academic subjects should be removed completely from this article 110.77.200.120 (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being discusd above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not being discussed. The whole discussion is ridiculous, just remove the blogs. 2001:B042:4005:525B:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more people who want to remove inaccurate sources like blogs than want to keep them. Seems consensus is to remove the blogs at least. And there is obviously a bias on this page it's not a neutral point of view. 2001:B042:4005:525B:B11A:62CA:9F54:CD18 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't, per the discussion at RSN, and even if that was the case it wouldn't matter. Consensus is not a vote but weighted on arguments based on Wikipedia's policies, and policy is very clear that blogs from subject matter experts are reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christ_myth_theory&oldid=1290551160"