Talk:Christ myth theory
These quotes have dates and page numbers, but what are the source names? - InvisibleSun 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Appendix to the corresponding Wikipedia article
This article appears to be some sort of appendix to the corresponding Wikipedia article: an annotated bibliography of an academic debate. I don't think duplicating and extending Wikipedia's coverage here really adds value — it reads like an essay pasted together from quotes. I am not sure which of these citations are quotable for Wikiquote's purposes, but I am pretty sure that not all of them are. ~ Ningauble 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, most quotes are from opponents of the Christ Myth Theory.
- Among the Christ Myth Theory advocates, only three are quoted:
- - John E. Remsberg, whose quote is a bit ambiguous: it is not clear what is "the former" in the final sentence "compelled to accept the former as the more probable."
- - then G. A. Wells, with a quote debatably included in the Section "scholarly consensus against the theory", when in fact, Wells is considered as the living doyen of the school supporting the Christ Myth Theory;
- - and Robert M. Price, with another unclear quotation.
- This article does not quote any of the other well-known Christ Myth Theory scholars who are already listed as major advocates in the Wikipedia article on "The Christ Myth Theory", such as:
- Charles François Dupuis,
- Constantin-François Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney,
- David Strauss,
- Bruno Bauer,
- The Radical Dutch school: Abraham Dirk Loman, Allard Pierson, C.A. van den bergh van Eysinga, G.J.P.J. Bolland, Hermann Dietering, Sytse Hoekstra, Samuel Naber, Rudolf Steck, Willem Christiaan van Manen,
- Edwin Johnson,
- John MacKinnon Robertson,
- William Benjamin Smith,
- Arthur Drews,
- Paul-Louis Couchoud,
- G.R.S. Mead,
- Bertrand Russell,
- John Allegro,
- Alva Ellegard,
- Thomas Thompson,
- Earl Doherty,
- Richard Dawkins,
- Victor Stenger.
- This gives the whole sequence of quotes a one-sided tilt of opposition to the Theory that is purposefully presented as the object of this article. The Christ Myth Theory is not rightfully represented.
- Whoever is in charge of this page is not really familiar with the subject.
- --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the claim that John E. Remsburg is a bit ambiguous. It is blatantly clear what "the former" is in the final sentence "compelled to accept the former as the more probable."
- Remsburg give two parallel statemenets:
- 1)Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth.
- 2)Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination.
- This makes it clear to anyone what the "the former" means: Jesus was a historical myth involving a real person. I have no idea how anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language couldn't figure that out.--188.8.131.52 10:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The most negatively biased content
Undoubtedly, this is the most negatively biased content I have ever read on the topic of Christ mythology. It appears to have been written by a Christian apologist with a clear agenda to clumsily discredit all scholarly work by mythologists with nothing more than quotes from other biased Christians, and most of those quotes rely heavenly on Argumentum ad Hominum (attacking the person instead of the issue) fallacy insults against anyone who states that "no man named Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Gospels, ever existed". Never once has the author of the topic used scientific methodology to prove his assertion, and never once did he attempt to disprove through the use of scientific methodology, logic, or reason even one scientifically demonstrable claim of any mythologist, past or present. This topic should have been named "Anti Christ-Myth propaganda" (as it contains an absolute lacunae of readily available scientific theory or fact on this topic.) Most of the text needs to be replaced with demonstrably provable claims of the mythologists themselves, links to sites on mythology, etc., so that the readers can actually read exactly what the mythologists are really saying, (along with their evidence), rather than allowing an anti-mythologist Christian dominate the topic with biased personal opinions and quotes from mostly unqualified, unscholarly, Christian book authors. In short, give readers both sides of the debate, and let them decide for themselves what to believe. ---Ersatzreifen 24 February, 2013
- You might have a point. The content of this article has been questioned before, see the discussion above. On Wikipedia in similar situations, you can add a Template:POV above the article. Here on Wikiquote you can add a Template:Npov template, if you want. -- Mdd (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- While a desired position Carrier notes that most of the Christ Myth Theory stuff is really really bad which is why there is a lack of good quotes on the for Christ Myth Theory side. It doesn't help that the pro historical side throws the "Christ Myth Theory" label around all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery and everybody has their own idea on what the term even means resulting on a range of designations from Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist (Frazer's and many late 19th-early 20th century mythists' position) through Jesus didn't exist as a human being at all (the extreme end of the Christ Myth Theory). Then you have the Gospel Jesus is a composite character with some aspects of historical messiahs part of his make up position (John M. Robertson and G.A. Wells} which has also been called "mythist". This is why there is a definition section as some on the pro historical side is engaging in a kind of Humpty Dumpty 'it means what I say it means' tap dance.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)