Template talk:Jesus

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should a link to Jesus myth theory be included in this template? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(no threaded replies in this section, please)

• Support inclusion. This template lists articles about Jesus, and in the interests of neutrality it ought to include a link to Jesus myth theory, which offers a minority but valid perspective. There's no reason within policy to exclude it, as Carlaude has been doing since November 2009. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would seem to fit within the context of the "Jesus and History" section of the template. Also, the existing 'In myth' label therein might be better renamed to 'Comparative mythology' or similar to distinguish it from 'Jesus myth theory'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as undue weight for a tiny minority fringe theory. It is also already covered in the template in the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. Read Christ myth theory#notes #8-23.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]} and this quote from the Christ myth theory: "|I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest."

And WP:Undue weight says: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The theory is certainly less outlandish than those positing virgin birth, resurrection, etc. ―cobaltcigs 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not simply a fringe theory supported by a tiny minority, even if some would like to think so. It is a valid topic and it directly related to the topic at hand. --13² 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would also oppose a link for Jesus the rice farmer, which if true will invalidate the myth theory. However, although I oppose, I think the link will eventually get included, either now or next year. I am sorry Carl, but I think if you do an informal opinion survey on the streets, there are just too many people who believe in the myth theory, so it will eventually go in, now or later. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons already outlined. When we have articles and templates pushing Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory, etc., I will be happy to reconsider. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think we're giving undue weight if it's the last link in the "jesus and history" section. Personally, I don't agree with the "Jesus myth theory", but I think it's a significant viewpoint and - although perhaps minority - not vanishingly so. This is a template with, what, 36 or 37 wikilinks concerning a religious figure - I'm sure we have room for one wikilink concerning the theory that the religious figure was fictional. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. WP:FRINGE. The problem here is that if this succeeds, a lot of stuff will be added to templates with a lot less visibility that are even more fringe. The Myth of Abraham Lincoln or somesuch. Don't encourage them! Student7 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion: Well, the myth theory is accepted by around 13% of Britain's population, 11% of Australians, and 1% of Americans, according to sourced statements in the article under discussion — so that doesn't sound like a fringe minority. Numerous scholars have written in support of the theory; the article gives sufficient examples to establish that. Whether the standard is "how many people believe it" or "how many 'reliable sources' believe it", the Jesus myth theory is obviously notable as a force within Christianity — and how could it not be? What sane person has not looked at all the conflicting info about Jesus' biography and at least once asked the question, "How do we even know he lived, given that historians disagree on so much else about him?" The article addresses those difficulties admirably, in a way that our other articles about Jesus neglect (because it's not within their intended scope). So it's hard to see how anyone could seriously equate this with the peculiar "Jesus was a rice farmer" theory or the non-existent "Abraham Lincoln never existed" theory in terms of general impact or notability. We don't have articles about Zoroaster myth theory yet simply because Wikipedia's coverage of non-Western prophets and the issues around their biographies significantly lags — not necessarily because those issues are irrelevant in places where Zoroaster is taken seriously. Anyway, I see no fair reason to suppress the inclusion of this theory in this template. AtticusX (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion Its a minority theory to be sure but it is not fringe, but to pretend it doesnt exist would be WP:UNDUE. Its very feasible he was entirely mythical construction but not a likely one. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion A single link in a collapsible template is not wp:undue. This is not wp:fringe as it has been seriously considered by numerous scholars and others (including significant proportions of the population in many countries as pointed out above.) I think this stems from the unfortunate juxtaposition of "myth" and "theory", which make it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Speaking of theory, it not one in the strict word of the sense. I suggest Jesus myth hypothesis as a more correct (and less contentious) title. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion, as there's no 100% proof the guy existed. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's fairly simple to prove this is a fringe theory: is it taught in any university classes on the New Testament? No, it's a theory sold by self-published, unaccredited individuals with Geocities websites and names like "Acharya S". People who study the subject in detail ignore it. Pull up a university curriculum to confirm this. Shii (tock) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion - Although the viewpoint is one to which a minority adheres, it is hardly a fringe theory (per the statistics noted by AtticusX). Including it in a section which links to articles about the historicity of Jesus, historical Jesus, Jesus in comparative mythology and the quest for the historical Jesus seems entirely appropriate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it should exist simply as a link to the "myth" article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:FRINGE theory and not NPOV. As has been said we don't have Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory and we can't "100% prove" that any of them existed either. We don't have Plato Myth Theory, or Socrates Myth theory (do I need to go on?) - are you absolutely sure they existed? Most (if not all) people accept they existed (on the basis of what evidence there is), likewise most people including many historians accept at the very least that the historicity (ie historical evidence) of Jesus of Nazareth is at least as good as any other historical figure. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: threaded replies have been moved into this section, and the initial comment they were responding to has been copied from above]

• Oppose as undue weight for a tiny minority fringe theory. It is also already covered in the template in the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. Read Christ myth theory#notes #8-23.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]} and this quote from the Christ myth theory:
  

And WP:Undue weight says:

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The theory includes the view that although a Jewish man named Jesus (Yeshua) as a basis may have existed, that the fanciful stories about him in the gospels are myth. It is indeed plausible that Jesus was just a man and not a magic sky god. That is an intrinsic aspect of the theory, and certainly not a fringe view. The notion has been around since the 1700s and is not merely a recent idea pushed by a single individual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Wikipedia article "Jesus myth theory" is only about "the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional or mythological character created by the early Christian community." That is the article lead. You may want to change your vote. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead also states: "Some proponents argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity."--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the founder(s) and/or orginiator(s) of Christianity were not people named Jesus. Feel free to look for authors reaching this view among reliable sources and let us know if you find any prevalence who do. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly any of the supporters of the theory, including Dawkins, would support the view that Christianity could have been initiated by someone other than 'Jesus'. Asserting that it absolutely must have been Jesus in the absence of concrete evidence is like saying Star Wars must have been written by Anakin Skywalker.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The theory is certainly less outlandish than those positing virgin birth, resurrection, etc. ―cobaltcigs 07:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This theory and this CfD is not related to the Virgin birth, etc. If you want to remove such links from the template, please bring that up under a separate CfD.^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming you mean RFC, I’ll decline on the basis that doing so would be (how do you say, ah yes) needlessly pointy. You’re well aware any attempt to remove the other theories would be summarily reverted by editors who regard them as absolute truths (ones with which the page Jesus myth theory is manifestly incompatible). But that’s really irrelevant as I’m not interested in suppressing other views simply because I disagree with them. ―cobaltcigs 12:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not simply a fringe theory supported by a tiny minority, even if some would like to think so. It is a valid topic and it directly related to the topic at hand. --13² 16:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to explain how this is not a minority viewpoint. Do mean it is not minority viewpoint among your friends? or among editors here at Wikipedia? Read this from WP:undue weight. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's not supported by any of the Christian sources you've checked doesn't mean it's fringe. In any case, a single link in a template is hardly 'undue weight'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write any part of that article, or investigate if any of the historian sorces were "Christian" or not "Christian." If you think it is biased then I propose you take up the issue on that page. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to 'that article'. I was referring to the opinions of various Christian writers that you provided as footnotes earlier in this topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authors such as Richard Dawkins are hardly fringe writers. Also, we're talking about a theory that has been around for at least 250 years. It is fairly clear that declaring this one link to a directly relevant article as 'undue weight' and 'fringe' is POV pushing. It's also unclear how gospel harmony is more relevant than the concept of Jesus as mythological.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, saying that "Jesus is mythological" is not the same as the theory that "Jesus is a myth". Do you know the difference? Only one of these two theories is a tiny minority viewpoint. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't think a theory is good just because it has been around for a long time.

I don't see anything in the biologist Richard Dawkins' article about the Jesus myth theory or vice versa. If he did write anything that can be considered a RS maybe you should indicate it in one article or the other. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth theory has citations specifically referring to Dawkins' The God Delusion in reference to Dawkins' comments about the plausibility that Jesus did not exist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I would also oppose a link for Jesus the rice farmer, which if true will invalidate the myth theory. However, although I oppose, I think the link will eventually get included, either now or next year. I am sorry Carl, but I think if you do an informal opinion survey on the streets, there are just too many people who believe in the myth theory, so it will eventually go in, now or later. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rice farmer folklore is an amusing slippery slope argument for inclusion. However, the entirely plausible and more widely held view that Jesus was not a magic sky god is entirely dissimilar to folklore about Jesus in one small village.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. I just keep getting amused by what I find in Wikipedia: His Japanese brother took his place, etc. I wonder if they had JAL frequent flier cards. That was funny. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, but at the time, it stood for 'Jesus AirLines'. How else would he ascend to heaven?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Now that we are having fun, let me say that I am surprised there is no link in the Jesus Myth Theory page for Nicolas Bourbaki. If you guys edit that page, you should add a link in the See also part. The next step would be to develop some type of analogy. The Wikipage for Bourbaki does not do the story justice - they (specially Cartan) played many clever tricks on the French Academy not mentioned there. The analogy would then be that the Gospels were like the books of the Bourbaki group. I wonder who Henry Cartan would be amoing the Apostles, Paul I guess. This will eventually give rise to some type of "Bourbaki Code" book series that relates Jesus to Bourbaki, by a cousin of Dan Brown and will sell many books. Time will tell. Anyway, enough now. History2007 (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had me at "Hello"... Sorry... wrong conversation. Though somehow it seemed just as relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the way I see it, this issues is already over, and we should cut back on heated debate. The situation as I see it is that regardless of calling it myth, mythology or whatever, there are people of all shapes and mindsets who think Jesus did not exist. I do not think the theory is valid (and hence voted oppose), but there are many of them out there, so the name of that article will not get suppressed in this template for long. And it will not make a big difference to Wikipedia or the world if that link is here or not, so no need to make a big deal in this debate. Let us just have a vote and move on, whatever the result may be. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct in your main point, but I oppose the inclusion not just because I personaly disagree, or that many others personaly disagree, but rather because it fits the Wikipedia policies as a tiny minority viewpoint among the prevalence of reliable sources. There are plenty of things that I (really each of us) personaly disagree with, and yet they are still not a tiny minority viewpoint among the prevalence of reliable sources. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't established that it is a "tiny minority".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for reasons already outlined. When we have articles and templates pushing Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory, etc., I will be happy to reconsider. • Astynax ^talk 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a bit further: I'm not disagreeing that the "Jesus myth theory" is notable enough for its own article. It is, however, a patently minority, even fringe, viewpoint. Placing it in the template (and having articles using the template to display/link to) is giving it undue weight. This happens in other templates where fringy topics are correctly excluded (see Template:The Holocaust for example, where there have been repeated attempts to insert links to various Holocaust denial articles). I don't see this as being any different. • Astynax ^talk 00:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't quite the same as Holocaust denial. There are extant contemporary records as well as living witnesses to the events of the Holocaust. The addition of a single link in a section of a template that is collapsed by default isn't exactly pushing the theory down the throats of anyone who doesn't like it, and linking to the article isn't an endorsement of the theory anyway. There seems no good reason to censor a link to an article that is directly relevant and well sourced - perish the thought that 'believers' might consider an alternative opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History does not require living witnesses or actual documents (copies do nicely), else there would be very little history beyond the past 2-3 centuries. It does not matter how long a theory has been in existence, that it has developed its own literature, or even how many subscribe to it, for it to be considered "fringe". Rather it is the quality of the propositions supporting the theory, the logical validity of the conclusions drawn, and the depth of support among the scholarly community, However much historians may disagree as to what extent the gospels and later writings reflect actual history, there is a consensus that, at its core, such a person did exist (see: Smith, Morton. 1978. Jesus the Magician. Harper & Row, p. 5. ISBN 0-060-67412-1 – "Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably started the process that became Christianity." Tuckett, Christopher. 2001. "Sources and Methods" in Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus. Cambridge University Press, p. 124. ISBN 0-521-79678-4 – "All this [extra-Biblical source material] does at least render highly implausible any far-fetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score."). The "Jesus myth" is a rather recent phenomenon tracing from Robert Taylor (previous doubters doubted only the amount of truth behind accounts, rather than that there was a person). Since then, arguments have been entirely supposition (i.e., introducing no evidence), inconsistent (Wells), or outright conspiracy theory (Wheless, Acharya, etc.); see Bennett, Clinton. 2001. In Search of Jesus: Insider and Outsider Images. Continuum. pp. 190–217. ISBN 0-826-44916-6. This is no different than Kennedy assasination or "Elvis is alive" theories. They are notable on their own, and for inclusion in articles about the assasination, Elvis fanatics, or (in this case) the Jesus Christ in comparative mythology article. They are not notable enough (and it is Undue weight) to be plastered on every article dealing with the core subject. • Astynax ^talk 22:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. WP:FRINGE. The problem here is that if this succeeds, a lot of stuff will be added to templates with a lot less visibility that are even more fringe. The Myth of Abraham Lincoln or somesuch. Don't encourage them! Student7 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of 'fringe', which refers to novel scientific theories of a single person or small group, rather than a plausible theory that has been around for hundreds of years, is here being misused. Additionally, speculation about what 'will' happen if this single link is added is unfounded.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "misused" because this "theory" lacks even the "single person" to support it in print? Do you mean "misused" because even in the unrepeatable field of history, there are still not any RSs that will scrape together a version of the theory can admit support for? Rather than arguing sematics, just find support for the theory or change you vote. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 15:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being tedious. We know you don't like the theory, but the target article is well sourced, and the single proposed link is not going to change the world.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion: Well, the myth theory is accepted by around 13% of Britain's population, 11% of Australians, and 1% of Americans, according to sourced statements in the article under discussion — so that doesn't sound like a fringe minority. Numerous scholars have written in support of the theory; the article gives sufficient examples to establish that. Whether the standard is "how many people believe it" or "how many 'reliable sources' believe it", the Jesus myth theory is obviously notable as a force within Christianity — and how could it not be? What sane person has not looked at all the conflicting info about Jesus' biography and at least once asked the question, "How do we even know he lived, given that historians disagree on so much else about him?" The article addresses those difficulties admirably, in a way that our other articles about Jesus neglect (because it's not within their intended scope). So it's hard to see how anyone could seriously equate this with the peculiar "Jesus was a rice farmer" theory or the non-existent "Abraham Lincoln never existed" theory in terms of general impact or notability. We don't have articles about Zoroaster myth theory yet simply because Wikipedia's coverage of non-Western prophets and the issues around their biographies significantly lags — not necessarily because those issues are irrelevant in places where Zoroaster is taken seriously. Anyway, I see no fair reason to suppress the inclusion of this theory in this template. AtticusX (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your views are bordering on the ridiculous. We don't get to ignore WP policy when we don't like it.

WP:undue weight says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," so the number of Britains that accept it -- if you had that information from a WP:RS -- would be irrelevant.

Even if numerous "scholars" have written in support of the theory in the past, or even in the present, that does not make them WP:RSs. I have posted many many RSs against this at the top. Neither you nor anyone else has posted any in support of it. Please stop claiming "scholars" support the theory. Please do not just claim RSs support the theory. If you can find even a single RS — then post it. Period. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. A single link is not undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources in support of the theory in question. Basically, you've already decided that any source that supports the theory 'must' inherently be 'unreliable' because it isn't compatible with your belief system. If the theory did not have reliable sources, then the target article would be deleted. The Notes, References, and Further reading sections of the article in question make it abundantly clear that the theory is neither 'undue weight' nor 'fringe'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem confused about the distinction about the theory being notable as opposed to the question of whether the theory may be correct. Even the 17 links you provided in rebuttal to the theory are evidence that the theory itself is broadly discussed. Whether the theory is correct is quite irrelevant, and a link to the theory is not an endorsement of the theory.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to do any checking rather than being casually dismissive, you would have found that "the number of Britains that accept it" and other statistics as provided by AtticusX above are from a 2005 study at Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Hey, Carlaude (şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ), telling me my views border on the ridiculous is insulting and is not likely to change my opinion. Wanna tone down the hysterics? AtticusX (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "plenty of sources in support of the theory in question" why can you not find any RSs to point out here? Do you just assume there are plenty of sources because you have not looked at any? Who knows. Maybe there are some RSs, but the fact that no one both wants to and is able to post any here makes me seriously doubt their are any.

An article on a theory needs RSs to avoid deletion, but an article on a theory does not need RSs in support of it to avoid deletion. Thus we have articles about Santa Claus, Flat Earth, and Inheritance of acquired characteristics — each without and RSs in support of them. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made reference to the entire sections of sources from the target article indicating the theory to be notable, and the theory is directly relevant to the template (more so than gospel harmony). It's not my problem if you can't be bothered going to the article and looking at them. Whether the theory is correct is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're suggesting that we delete Santa from the Christmas template, it's not clear what your point is. It is not necessary to prove the theory in order to include a link to it in the template. Most of the people who have responded to the RFC have indicated in support of the link. Those who oppose the link have done so based on arguments that it is:

• 'undue weight' - however, a single link in a collapsed section of a template is not undue weight.
• 'fringe' - however, the available sources indicate that the theory is widely discussed, with many proponents.

--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Carlaude has posted this RfC to the Christianity wikiproject. I asked him here to post it to the atheism project for balance, but he has declined, so I'll do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page says at the top "This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity". Maybe you also want to mark this page/template as "within the scope of WikiProject Atheism"? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 14:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be needlessly pointy. Most atheists may not be interested in Jesus in general, but whether or not to link to a theory that jesus was fictional is surely of interest to some folk over at the atheism project. bobrayner (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth theory is in the scope of WikiProject Atheism, but this general template about Jesus is not. However, it's fairly clear that the suggestion was intended sarcastically, in protest to this debate being mentioned at the Atheism project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeffro, I see no problem with them voting here too. History2007 (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one minds them voting. I object to the assumtion that Atheism is somehow the same as "Ajesusism" or even "Achristianitism". ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that the fictional terms you've indicated are "somehow the same", only that the theory is relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's fairly simple to prove this is a fringe theory: is it taught in any university classes on the New Testament? No, it's a theory sold by self-published, unaccredited individuals with Geocities websites and names like "Acharya S". People who study the subject in detail ignore it. Pull up a university curriculum to confirm this. Shii (tock) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some merit in whether the theory is taught at universities, your argument relies on logical fallacies (both argument from ignorance and guilt by association). User:Victor_falk already provided a list of notable individuals who've supported the theory, and the target article is itself very well sourced. (I'm not aware that 'Acharya S from Geocities' is among those sources.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his edit summary for this edit, Carlaude has accused me of censoring his Talk page comments. For this reason, I am clearly stating the situation here.

Carlaude, apparently dissatisfied with the lack of support for his point of view, is now upset with my initial removal of unnecessary formatting around his quotes about undue weight.[8] After I removed only the unnecessary formatting, he decided to retributively add a whole swathe of over-formatted quotes, instead of what were previously cited refs.[9] He is now claiming that his retributive edits are being 'censored', though they are in fact right where they were in his original edit. Carlaude, your position doesn't have concensus. Deal with it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure; I am a terrible person. Rather than my edits being "retributive" for something, since Jeffro77 had moved copies of them to his "Comments" section anyhow-- presumably for actual discussion-- I just made these important statement visible. Hiding someone else's comments is a form of censorship, and even if it were not, you don't have a right to change other people's comments, per WP:Talk#Editing comments, even if this were your own talk page. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that you've arguably moved beyond persuasion, Carlaude, and might now be seen as trying to take over the entire discussion. You've made your points well, so now is the time to step back and let people make up their own minds. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, please stop moving things to where you want them to.

Any closing editor can do his/her job fine without your help, and furthermore you (1) are making it more difficult to actual discuss this and (2) you are coming across as someone purposely trying to make it more difficult to actually discuss the issue(s), purposely trying obscure current discussion, and purposely trying obscure facts. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not move anything to any 'Comments' section, nor did I ever claim ownership of such a section. Carlaude, in his vitriol seems to be attributing to me an edit by User:SlimVirgin.[10].

The WP:Talk#Editing comments page Carlaude cites states, "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Refactoring for relevance; ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read." A long list of citations from people who do not support the theory (though who have obviously considered the theory) does not indicate that the theory is not notable, and acceptance of the theory is not the criterion for inclusion. Therefore, the long list is not especially relevant to the discussion, and the (excessive) citations, as originally provided by Carlaude as refs do not add anything to the discussion as quotes, much less as oversized quotes. My refactoring—restoring your original edit—is entirely within acceptable conduct.

The point indeed is that you, Carlaude, simply do not have consensus for your view, and the proper course of action is to accept consensus rather than complain about tangential minutia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion (response to RfC) A single link in a collapsible template is not wp:undue. This is not wp:fringe as it has been seriously considered by numerous scholars and others (including significant proportions of the population in many countries as pointed out above.) I think this stems from the unfortunate juxtaposition of "myth" and "theory", which make it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. Speaking of theory, it not one in the strict word of the sense. I suggest Jesus myth hypothesis as a more correct (and less contentious) title. ^walk victor falk ^talk 1:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Some conspiracy theories have also seriously considered by numerous scholars-- because many poeople think that they may be so-- not because these theories have merits. This is why how many scholars have "seriously considered" a theory is not part of Wikipedia policy on the issue-- nor should it be. You are right in that some terms here make it sound like a "wild conspiracy theory." What is the issue is here is that no facts nor RSs dispute its likeness to a wild conspiracy theory. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion A single link in a collapsible template is not wp:undue. The unfortunate juxtaposition of "myth" and "theory" make it sound like a wild conspiracy theory, but it is not. It is the view of a minority of historians and Bible scholars, but it has been given enough serious consideration not to qualify as wp:fringe. I propose addressing this problem by changing the title to Jesus myth hypothesis. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For it to be the view of a minority of historians and Bible scholars, there has to be at least one of each. Can you name any? (and not just claim that they are "there"-- but that you cannot be troubled to type in any name.) Do you have any RSs that state that it is a "minority" view?

By the way, WP:Undue weight says: " ...the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles François Dupuis, Constantin-François Chassebœuf, David Strauss, Thomas L. Thompson, Bruno Bauer, Allard Pierson, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, Edwin Johnson (historian), Adolf von Harnack, Arthur Drews, André Dupont-Sommer, Graham Stanton, Robert M. Price, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Thompson, Alan Dundes, Bertrand Russell

Only a very tiny minority of scientists doubt global warming. Still, there are several links to global warming controversy articles in Template:Global warming. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should merge the sub-sections that have support/oppose in them. I was confused as to where my comment had to go. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of threaded discussion in the Comments section, so I moved it to the section for threaded discussion. But I had to copy the initial comments too, otherwise the replies would have made no sense. That's why there's repetition. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I getcha now. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs & thanks for the notification at WPAM. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you (victor falk) for this attempt at naming a historian or Bible scholar that holds this view.
• For people to have an opinion, they have to be alive. Nearly all (14) of these people are dead. In fact, six of them (Charles François Dupuis, Constantin-François Chassebœuf, David Strauss, Bruno Bauer, Allard Pierson, Edwin Johnson (historian)) died more than 100 years ago. The remaining eight (Adolf von Harnack, Arthur Drews, Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga, Bertrand Russell, André Dupont-Sommer, Alan Dundes, Alvar Ellegård, Graham Stanton) have died since.
• Of the remaining two...

(1) Thomas L. Thompson (you put his name in twice) is not shown to be a holder of the Jesus myth hypothesis. The dust jacket of The Messiah myth: the Near Eastern roots of Jesus and David (jackets are written by those trying to sell the book, not necessarily by anyone who has read it) indicates that (while Jesus existed) no stories from the gospels is about him. The book itself is only quoted(?) to say "the historicity of Jesus is an assumption of scholarship not a finding" on page 8. This is not the Jesus myth hypothesis.

(2) Thompson is not a New Testament historian and thus not a RS on Jesus. He is an Old Testament historian, and book is mostly about David, and all about pre-Jesus events.

• Robert M. Price is scholar but is not called a historian in his article. He is a theologian. He also is not shown to be a holder of the Jesus myth hypothesis. Looking at his article called "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash", he tries to show that to a "wide extent to which the stories comprising the gospels" invented from "...the Old Testament". While Price says that "virtually the entirety of the gospel narratives" are such he does not claim therein that Jesus himself was invented. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since they're dead, atleast we know they ain't gonna change their opinons. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether those people are alive is not at all relevant to the notability of the theory, but the list does establish that the theory is indeed notable. It's also unclear how some people who died recently would make the theory somehow less notable as a direct result of their individual deaths.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• People seem to want the Christ myth theory#notes #8-23 treated as "new comments".... and added at the end rather than were they were before. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 02:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more.

— Burridge

The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

— Van Voorst, page 16

I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

— Wright, N. T., "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", There Is A God, Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Varghese, New York: HarperOne, 2007, 188. ISBN 978-0061335297

The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him.

— Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville: Westminster, 1985, 29

We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.

— Sanders, E.P., The Historical Figure of Jesus, New York: Penguin Press, 1993, xiv

Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.

— Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972

Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.

— Johnson, Luke Timothy, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996, 121. ISBN 978-0060641665

It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus

— (emphasis added), Koester, Helmut, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) pgs. 76 & 164.

Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine (of Alexandria)'s fate as an unhistorical myth.

— Allison, Dale C., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 37. ISBN 978-082862624

I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

— Ehrman, Bart, Discussion on the Infidel Guy Radio Show

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

— Crossan, John Dominic, interview, available at http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus1.html

By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.

— Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", in Form Criticism, transled by Fredrick C. Grant (New York: Harper & Brother, 1962) p. 62.

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure there's any evidence that 'people seem to want' these listed at length here, as opposed to their original placement in refs. In any case, this list only indicates that many people have considered the theory, attesting to the notability of same.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - WP:FRINGE theory and not NPOV. As has been said we don't have Mohammad myth theory, Buddha myth theory, Zoroaster myth theory and we can't "100% prove" that any of them existed either. We don't have Plato Myth Theory, or Socrates Myth theory (do I need to go on?) - are you absolutely sure they existed? Most (if not all) people accept they existed (on the basis of what evidence there is), likewise most people including many historians accept at the very least that the historicity (ie historical evidence) of Jesus of Nazareth is at least as good as any other historical figure. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason we don't have articles on the hypothetical theories you suggest is because those theories don't exist. The target article demonstrates that the theory that Jesus didn't exist is notable and has been around for hundreds of years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The theory that the earth is flat has been around for hundreds of years, who knows there might still be people around today who accept it. Undoubtedly it was plausible to some (even though still the minority) before Columbus circumnavigated the globe. Does the page for Flat Earth present it as a plausible theory? No. Has it been superceded? Yes. I can't do anything about the fact that a few people believe a Jesus myth theory also, but as we would not present Flat Earth as plausible nowadays, so the Jesus myth theory should be presented the same way - as an outdated theory.62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Incorrect. The flat earth theory is outdated, but the other theory is still current and has many proponents. If anything, it is growing in popularity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And by the way, it is also a myth that most people thought the earth was flat before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thats why I said a minority. With regard to JMT - it's already linked to from another article, so people can find it easy enough + we have a search box on wikipedia. Don't worry people will find it easily enough. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, you agree that your comparison to the flat earth theory is irrelevant. The single link to the theory is directly within the scope of the template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I am not going to be drawn into an argument. There are a minority who believe both theories, the relevance is that a flat earth is as inplausible to most geographers as the Jesus myth theory is impausible to most historians. We have a link to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology in the Jesus article, and that in turn links to the various mythological views, including the Christ myth view. That's the proper way to link these articles. Christ Myth Theory is not a main article, its one aspect of Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. Thats my preference for linkage. And the latter should not be described as further information, it is the main article on the mythological views about Jesus.62.254.133.139 (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comparison with the flat earth theory represents a false syllogism, because that theory has been completely disproved, rather than simply not accepted by the majority (but not an insignificant minority). Aside from that, the theory that Jesus is himself mythological is not the same thing as comparison of other mythologies to Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Yes it probably is a false syllogism, I'll strike that. My point was that the age of a theory tells us little about whether it is still fringe or not. JMT has been a fringe theory in the past. The proponents of a theory would be the last people I would ask if I wanted to find out how widely accepted it currently is though. I am tending to agree that this link lends undue weight to the "Christ myth theory". Why link directly to this one aspect of Jesus Christ in comparative mythology more than any other? There is also Lewis's "True Myth" view. If we link to one we have to link to all. But what would be the point of that when we already have a link to Jesus Christ in comparative mythology. I also think Jesus myth theory would be better and more accurately entitled Jesus myth hypothesis.62.254.133.139 -DMSBel (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The reason we don't have articles on the hypothetical theories you suggest is because those theories don't exist. " Actually the Buddha myth theory indeed exists, and you could even go back into the 19th century to find idiots talking about Buddha being a pureblood Aryan or an invention of the Indians, but I wouldn't bother violating WP:POINT to write an article on the "hundreds of years" of that grand fringe theory. Shii (tock) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the target article is not being contended here, and the article exists on its own merits, and is very well sourced. Comparison with any of the other hypothetical 'theory' articles is out of the scope of this discussion. This discussion is about a single link to that article, not whether the article is itself valid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my point Jeffro.

Having many scholars affirm the lack of any scholars holding the theory attests it is a tiny minority view among scholars-- and if it also shows these scholars had to first "consider" the theory-- it would thus attest to the subject notability some-- but the WP:notability is irrelevant because the existence of the target article is not being contended! Notability is only a factor in the existence of the stand alone article.

WP:Undue weight: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is about the link. In leaving the other matters aside (from this discussion) I am not suggesting they are invalid. Jeffro77 is correct, there is an article:Jesus myth theory, and this is about a link to it, not about the article itself. I apologise for my earlier divergence from the main issue. Notability is relevant to discussion though. We currently have a link to it from the article: Jesus Christ in comparative mythology (I will refer to from now on as JCICM). As the use of the word "myth" varies between writers, with it having more negative connotations in some circles (higher criticism), and a more positive view from other writers (literary apologists such as JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis for instance hold a "true myth" view which as been widely discussed in secondary works but is rather inadequately covered here),so we need to be careful here that we are covering all views, and not assenting one out of a range of views. Therefore in my view JCICM should be designated the main article (for the mythological views) and the only link, so that reader can follow the link to there and see the different views, including un-historical myth. I have a range of research material (not available to read online) right at hand on this including, theological and historical sources and secondary sources so I know what some of the different views are. Linking to just one of them (JMT according to its lead is about the non-existence hypothesis or un-historical myth) is giving that one undue weight.62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. Shii (tock) 11:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of all that there are so many arguments and so many support & oppose positions that there seems to be no clear consensus to do anything. So I guess by the time Tuesday arrives, it will all have been a discussion with no conclusion after all. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a two-thirds majority in support of the link.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before I do not see the addition or non-addition of the link as a big deal either way that will end the world or not. In the end it is one link. I am just amazed how much talking was done and I have not counted things (I guess you have) but the situation seemed murky. And again, let me get on my soap box to say that all the talk effort could have been used for improving content here and there. But anyway, I am glad it is over. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]