aa5874

There is some error with your posts, I did NOT claim "HJ is the better explanation".

There is in fact no HJ theory since there is NO credible source of antiquity for HJ. A theory cannot be developed without DATA

HJ is an unsubstantiated claim where the claimants have no way of producing any credible evidence from antiquity and are involved in rhetoric, unreliable information and speculation.

maryhelena

aa - I think Joseph is doing this

and there is the other AA of course....

Toto

AA = ApostateAbe

aa = aa5874.

maryhelena

Perhaps a good time to copy spin's great chart.....

Notice that the 'Historical' Jesus section shows that the gospels are viewed as a problematic literary source for the assumed historical JC.......Notice how spin has used "Maximal" for the JC position that views the gospels as a reliable source.

Thus a Maximal gospel JC and a Historical gospel JC.......One can't remove the tag 'gospel' from the historical JC assumption - that is purely a sledge of hand movement designed to claim credibility where none exists.

[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, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{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, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & 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 figure behind the gospel Jesus 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, Robert H. Gundry
||
{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. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor 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}Hermann Detering (*), 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.

[hr=1]100[/hr]

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....85#post6656385

Chaucer

Yes, Spin's chart is helpful. It went through a number of changes when it was first being put together, and I make no bones of its earlier version having caused me considerable irritation in its occasional contradictions (some might say that "irritation" is my middle name..........). But its finished form is now quite useful.

In essence, the secular non-believer HJ-er, frequently, though not exclusively, found in modern secular academe, relies the most heavily on peer-reviewed historical research, scholarship and analysis. This is the demographic most frequently found in the more rigorous scholarly and research circles. The consensus generally found in these circles corresponds most closely with the type of non-believer HJ-er that we're still waiting to hear from in this thread.

Looking directly at this chart, the non-believer HJ-er we've been referencing in this thread corresponds most closely with Spin's second line, Historical.

Joe, on the other hand, does not, for instance, take the crucifixion as an historic event, and there are other details where he would differ from the secular academic consensus outlined above, as well.

Looking directly at this chart, then, Joe corresponds most directly with Spin's third line, "Accreted".

Nothing wrong with hearing from those of the "Accreted" school. But this thread is waiting for a posting from someone in the Historical school to properly resolve this matter.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Vivisector

I would be part of this category, though I can relate to elements of Spin's "Traditional" category. It's just how I presently assess individual and cumulative likelihoods - by no means a "slam dunk" or anything I expect to see decisively settled in my lifetime.

Just please, for Christ's sake, don't drag me into a HJ/MJ debate.

Cheers,

V

Toto

Well, look who's there. The list of scholars are mostly liberal Christians, with a few ex-Christians, who are noted for their studies of the gospels and use of the historical critical method. Some are on the faculty of seminaries, others are at secular institutions

All of these scholars derive their picture of Jesus primarily from the gospels.

Marcus Borg, "Borg is among the most widely-known and influential voices in progressive Christianity. . . canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral . . "

J.D. Crossan does not take most of the gospels as literal, but he still derives his historical Jesus from the 20% of the material in the gospels that he takes as historical, plus background knowledge from social history of the Roman Empire.

Burton Mack, "scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament. . . Though he does not regard himself as a Historical Jesus scholar, he ... is a noted scholar of the hypothetical Q Document..." [Q is derived from the gospels of Luke and Matt]

E. P. Sanders, "New Testament scholar" noted for his analysis of Paul, and his emphasis of the Jewish root of Jesus."

Paula Fredriksen, a convert from Roman Catholicism to Judaism, bases her work on the gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul (Introduction to From Jesus to Christ

Helmut Koester, "Morison Research Professor of Divinity and Winn Research Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School. . .

Stevan L. Davies, author of Jesus the Healer (or via: amazon.co.uk) "Arguing that the gospels reveal Jesus to have been a spirit possessed healer. . ."

Raymond E. Brown, "an American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar. ...Brown was one of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible."

Mark Goodacre, "has written extensively on the Synoptic Problem; that is, the origins of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. "

J.P. Meier, "Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. . . . analyzes sources, including the New Testament and non-canonical works. The latter include the agrapha, the apocryphal gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas), Josephus, and other Jewish and second-century Roman works." Meier is noted for the use of the criteria of authenticity to extract historical information from the gospels.

Bart D. Ehrman, Abe's hero, relies almost exclusively on the gospels.

Jesus seminar "The seminar treats the canonical gospels as historical sources that represent Jesus' actual words and deeds as well as elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors. "

Vivisector

Hi, Toto.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of these folks' books are on my shelf. In fact, I have to give a lot of credit to their work for confirming my own deconversion. Their approaches might not be completely free from religiously-based biases and presuppositions, but even at that, I view them as orders of magnitude more objective in their scholarship than many who came before (setting aside the Tubingen school and maybe others I can't recollect at the moment). It seems to be that, basically, Christians largely own the field of Christian scholarship. Some are of a more conservative stripe, some of a more liberal, but by and large, Christians. Relatively speaking, there just aren't that many (yet) rigorously-trained historians from a non-Christian background who are academically contributing to the field. I don't know why this would be, other than maybe related to the difficulty of developing the necessary passion for studying a religion that's not (presently or formerly) your own. Do you think it's even possible to turn that tide? And if so, what is it going to take?

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

Well, is it not really disingenuous when Scholars like Bart Ehrman claims the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE when arguing with Christians but REVERSES himself to ASSUME the Gospels is history and WITHOUT any corroborative source from antiquity?

This is UNPARDONABLE and TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

Once Bart Ehrman DECLARED the NT Gospels as historically UNRELIABLE then he MUST, I repeat, MUST provide a CREDIBLE source for HJ or else he is just like the very Christians he argues against.

This is BART EHRMAN in a debate. See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

The "historical Jesus" VIOLATES every single criteria by Bart Ehrman. Every single one.

Who are these so-called HJ Scholars?

There can be no HJ theory since Scholars have ONLY ASSUMED an HJ and NO credible evidence has been presented.

HJ will REMAIN an ASSUMPTION, an unsubstantiated claim without credible evidence.

The matter has been settled. There is NO PAGAN sources with credible evidence of HJ.

Chaucer

Well, then:

A) Are you at this time a non-believer?

B) Since you do aver that your views tally closest with Spin's Historical line, do you feel that the essence of the historical HJ model is found in pagan sources and they're sufficient in reflecting what you see as most likely historical?

or

C) Since you do aver that you tally closest with Spin's Historical line, do you feel that those tallying closest with Spin's Historical line, and thus with your own views, are dependent on the gospels in arriving at their HJ model?

And a hearty welcome to this discussion!

Thank you,

Chaucer