|  | Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. | 
|  10-29-2010, 10:58 AM | #101 | 
| Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere 
					Posts: 15,747
				 |  Several minor tweaks [T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus spin | 
|   | 
|  10-29-2010, 11:02 AM | #102 | 
| Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area 
					Posts: 40,549
				 |   
			
			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.
		 | 
|   | 
|  10-29-2010, 11:11 AM | #103 | |
| Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere 
					Posts: 15,747
				 |   Quote: 
 But I do need more examples for each category that people can chase up from the table. spin | |
|   | 
|  10-29-2010, 12:27 PM | #104 | |
| Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area 
					Posts: 40,549
				 |   Quote: 
 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. | |
|   | 
|  10-29-2010, 09:24 PM | #105 | ||
| Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere 
					Posts: 15,747
				 |   Quote: 
 (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 | ||
|   | 
|  10-29-2010, 09:59 PM | #106 | 
| Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton 
					Posts: 5,679
				 |   
			
			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.
		 | 
|   | 
|  11-02-2010, 01:35 PM | #107 | 
| Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere 
					Posts: 15,747
				 |  A few tweaks, still need comment [T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus spin | 
|   | 
|  11-02-2010, 02:25 PM | #108 | |
| Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England 
					Posts: 2,527
				 |   
			
			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: 
 | |
|   | 
|  11-05-2010, 01:08 AM | #109 | |
| Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England 
					Posts: 2,527
				 |   
			
			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: 
 | |
|   | 
|  11-05-2010, 06:52 AM | #110 | ||
| Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere 
					Posts: 15,747
				 |   Quote: 
 spin | ||
|   | 
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread | 
| 
 |