FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-29-2010, 10:58 AM   #101
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default Several minor tweaks

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
|
{c:av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Luke Timothy Johnson, Dale Allison
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{c:av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]Notes:
1. Degrees of affinity between the various Jesuses (as indicated by the divisions between them): Single: close; Dashed: further; Double: little; Solid: none
2. Quotes around the types of Jesus indicate labels needing improvement.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 11:02 AM   #102
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Surely Albert Schweitzer is not Maximal. He did believe in a historical Jesus, but did not believe that Jesus could be recovered from the surviving texts.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 11:11 AM   #103
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Surely Albert Schweitzer is not Maximal. He did believe in a historical Jesus, but did not believe that Jesus could be recovered from the surviving texts.
OK. Removed. I won't try to argue the logic, though I'd guess you'd want to put him in the Historical group, which I couldn't do. (The maximal position is not intended to equate to a faith position, but to fullest acceptance of the literature's veracity.)

But I do need more examples for each category that people can chase up from the table.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 12:27 PM   #104
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Surely Albert Schweitzer is not Maximal. He did believe in a historical Jesus, but did not believe that Jesus could be recovered from the surviving texts.
OK. Removed. I won't try to argue the logic, though I'd guess you'd want to put him in the Historical group, which I couldn't do. (The maximal position is not intended to equate to a faith position, but to fullest acceptance of the literature's veracity.)
I'm not sure why he wouldn't fit in the second historical group.

Dale Allison, from what I have read, believes in a historical Jesus, but does not think that the gospels are documentary evidence. He does seem to think that they are reliable guides to the impression that Jesus made on people, just not reliable guides to what actually happened.

Luke Timothy Johnson has rejected the attempt to extract a historical secular Jesus from the gospels, in particular the Jesus Seminar's attempt. His Jesus is the Jesus of faith, and he probably doesn't care a fig if the gospels are documentary history or not. I don't quite understand your traditional category - perhaps he fits there?

Bishop NT Wright probably fits your Maximalist category the best.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 09:24 PM   #105
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
OK. Removed. I won't try to argue the logic, though I'd guess you'd want to put him in the Historical group, which I couldn't do. (The maximal position is not intended to equate to a faith position, but to fullest acceptance of the literature's veracity.)
I'm not sure why he wouldn't fit in the second historical group.

Dale Allison, from what I have read, believes in a historical Jesus, but does not think that the gospels are documentary evidence. He does seem to think that they are reliable guides to the impression that Jesus made on people, just not reliable guides to what actually happened.

Luke Timothy Johnson has rejected the attempt to extract a historical secular Jesus from the gospels, in particular the Jesus Seminar's attempt. His Jesus is the Jesus of faith, and he probably doesn't care a fig if the gospels are documentary history or not. I don't quite understand your traditional category - perhaps he fits there?

Bishop NT Wright probably fits your Maximalist category the best.
Wright a straight theologian. He is unashamedly faith directed in his analyses. Many of the faith nutters who come here don't fit in the table because they don't have a rational analytical basis for their position.

(I don't really want to put a "Nutter Faith Jesus" in the table. Maybe I should add another note to explain that the Faith Jesus isn't a candidate. Maybe I should include it, given that I've included the more dubious non-faith interpretations.)

The difference between Maximalist and Historical here is about approach to sources. A lot of people who have defended the historical Jesus on this forum seem to me to be Maximalist in their approach to their sources. The "Historical Jesus" moniker is being used differently by different people. The Jesus Seminar crew is attempting to be historical with regards to their evaluation of sources and this might be called "minimalist" in its approach to sources. This is where I've complained about terminology in the past here and why I accepted No Robots' category which is labeled here "Maximalist". People confuse "real" with "historical". (It is an obtuseness that I have tried very hard to elucidate on BC&H.)

The debate between "maximal" and "minimal" re: the Jewish bible is a matter of treatment of source materials. It's the historical analysis approach against the textpert approach.

I admit to ignorance of many of these new testament pundits because so few of them seem interested in history. That's why I'm happy to take on informed understandings about who and what. I just want to make a functional, clear and meaningful tool for our members.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-29-2010, 09:59 PM   #106
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
The debate between "maximal" and "minimal" re: the Jewish bible is a matter of treatment of source materials. It's the historical analysis approach against the textpert approach.
Absolutely. At the extreme maximal end is Constantin Brunner, who completely rejects the historical-critical approach, and argues for the essential veracity of the Gospels on the basis of purely textual analysis.
No Robots is offline  
Old 11-02-2010, 01:35 PM   #107
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default A few tweaks, still need comment

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, Dale Allison
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]Notes:
1. Degrees of affinity between the various Jesuses (as indicated by the divisions between them): Single: close; Dashed: further; Double: little; Solid: none
2. Quotes around the types of Jesus indicate labels needing improvement.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-02-2010, 02:25 PM   #108
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Regarding Wells.

"This position does not see the crucifixion as historical."

Perhaps this could be stated more precisely. Wells does not have his Galilean preacher crucified. However, he does put forward the idea that the gospel crucifixion story could be based upon earlier crucifixions. A much earlier historical crucifixion has been connected to the later time frame of the gospel Galilean preacher.


Quote:
The Jesus Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk)
page xxix

If Paul envisaged any historical circumstances for Jesus’s death, he may well have thought of his ‘Christ crucified’ as one of the victims of earlier Jewish rulers. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing near the end of the first century A.D., tells that Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria in the second century B.C., and the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus, of the first century C.C., both caused living Jews to be crucified in Jerusalem (Josephus expressly notes that in these cases this punishment was not inflicted after execution, as it often was). Both periods of persecution are alluded to in Jewish religious literature (for instance in the Dead Sea Scrolls); and Jannaeus’s crucifixion of 800 Pharisees left a strong impression on the Jewish world. Paul’s environment, then, would have knows that pious Jews had been crucified long ago, although dates and circumstances would probably have been known only vaguely.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 01:08 AM   #109
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

spin - this is priceless! Do we need a new category in the chart now? How about 'Historical Drag'? Your comment might be tongue cheek - but it hits the nail squarely on it's head. This is the best description yet of the 'historical' Jesus - :thumbs:

Quote:
People are thinking about the historical Jesus because of the slowly failing christian hegemony. Why else would one want to tart up Jesus in historical garb? He was fine for a millennium and a half. He's been given historical drag by some for perhaps forty years. He'd been looked at rationally before that for a century. These changes reflect socio-cultural changes that have slowly debased the christian hegemony.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...0.html#p559689
my bolding
maryhelena is offline  
Old 11-05-2010, 06:52 AM   #110
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
spin - this is priceless! Do we need a new category in the chart now? How about 'Historical Drag'? Your comment might be tongue cheek - but it hits the nail squarely on it's head. This is the best description yet of the 'historical' Jesus - :thumbs:

Quote:
People are thinking about the historical Jesus because of the slowly failing christian hegemony. Why else would one want to tart up Jesus in historical garb? He was fine for a millennium and a half. He's been given historical drag by some for perhaps forty years. He'd been looked at rationally before that for a century. These changes reflect socio-cultural changes that have slowly debased the christian hegemony.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ch...0.html#p559689
my bolding
:blush: The chart is supposed to be a no spin zone. Plain old "Historical (Jesus)" is neutral.


spin
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:36 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.