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 12-14-2005, 06:09 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Nope, I'm wrong. They re-inserted the Karl Marx remark. Wow! Sure am glad that I don't live with their consciences.

The first scholarly proponent of the Jesus Myth idea was probably nineteenth nentury historian Bruno Bauer, who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo. His arguments made little impact on the wider scholarly community of his time, though Karl Marx's collaborator Friedrich Engels was impressed with his theory. In the early twentieth century, however, a few other scholars published arguments in favor of the Jesus Myth idea. These treatments were more influential and merited several book-length responses by historians and New Testament scholars. In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few academic proponents but has been advanced by William B. Smith and George Albert Wells, as well as by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, and Earl Doherty.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 06:21 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
Cool Locking the Page

Vork, you probably need to flag the page as 'controversial' or something similar, so it'll get locked down against bogus editing. Take extra care to present the case fairly to the editors, and your version will probably be allowed to stand.
Asha'man is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 06:22 PM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RUmike
The whole first two paragraphs under "Arguments against the Jesus Myth" should definitely be removed, or put under a different heading, because they are not Arguments Against the Jesus Myth. While I agree with what was written, it simply makes the article seem less balanced and serves only to discredit the whole section against the myth theory.
The last three are also worthless. At the moment, the strongest argument in favor of historicity is the academic concensus in favor of it.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 06:23 PM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

How do I do that, Ash? I just put in a complaint about it to the editors.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 06:35 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: southeast
Posts: 2,526
Default

I'm not sure exactly, but I know it can be done. It happens alot with E/C type pages, as well as political ones.

Talking to the editors is probably the first step.


Edit - some links:
Accuracy Dispute
Requests for Page Protection
Asha'man is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 12:46 PM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
Nope, I'm wrong. They re-inserted the Karl Marx remark. Wow! Sure am glad that I don't live with their consciences.

The first scholarly proponent of the Jesus Myth idea was probably nineteenth nentury historian Bruno Bauer, who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo. His arguments made little impact on the wider scholarly community of his time, though Karl Marx's collaborator Friedrich Engels was impressed with his theory. .
I'm not sure why this is so objectionable.

IIUC it is mostly agreed that Bauer's ideas had less impact among New Testament scholars than they deserved, and that his influence upon Engels and to a lesser extent Marx is his most important direct legacy.

Most later mythicists, although they share Bauer's scepticism about a Historical Jesus, have little else in common with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
In the early twentieth century, however, a few other scholars published arguments in favor of the Jesus Myth idea. These treatments were more influential and merited several book-length responses by historians and New Testament scholars. In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few academic proponents but has been advanced by William B. Smith and George Albert Wells, as well as by Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, and Earl Doherty.
William B Smith is an early 20th century mythicist and should be clearly identified as such. George A Wells and his successors are much later than Smith.

John M Robertson, Peter Jensen and Arthur Drews should probably be mentioned along with William B Smith as early 20th century mythicists.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 05:43 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

So Andrew, in a page on the historical Jesus, you would consider the paragraph:

The historicist position is that Jesus was a historical person who was crucified by the Romans sometime around 30 AD and founded the religion that bears his name. This position is held by Juan Peron, General Franco of Spain, and the Ku Klux Klan.

...acceptable and not at all objectionable? The inclusion of that remark is there simply as a smear and for no other purpose. It matters not a whit who believes in the HJ.

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-15-2005, 05:53 PM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Thanks Ash.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 12-16-2005, 10:47 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
So Andrew, in a page on the historical Jesus, you would consider the paragraph:

The historicist position is that Jesus was a historical person who was crucified by the Romans sometime around 30 AD and founded the religion that bears his name. This position is held by Juan Peron, General Franco of Spain, and the Ku Klux Klan.

...acceptable and not at all objectionable? The inclusion of that remark is there simply as a smear and for no other purpose. It matters not a whit who believes in the HJ.

Vorkosigan
a/ Marx and Engels whether one agrees with them or not were great thinkers, IF Bauer was a significant influence on their thought this is worth mentioning. I don't think that Peron Franco or the Ku Klux Klan are important thinkers in that sense.

b/ Vast numbers of people hold the historicist position listing Peron Franco etc rather than say Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa etc seems tendentious. The difficulty with Bauer is IIUC the extreme (and in many ways unjustified) neglect of his work in the 19th century. (Compared say to the much greater impact of contemporaries like Strauss.)

c/ If one is doing a historiography of 19th century mythicism at all then one either says that Bauer was totally ignored by NT scholars and leaves it at at that, which is problematic, or mentions Engels or finally find some other, less controversial examples, of important 19th century thinkers influenced by Bauer. I'm not sure who would be good examples here.

(PS A historiography of mythicism should probably include Dupuis and Volney who were earlier than Bauer and probably in some ways closer to 20th century mythicism.)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 12-16-2005, 11:17 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
(Though this is not entirely true; the examination of Roman documents reported the crucifixion of one Jesus of Nazareth)
Is that true?
show_no_mercy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Top

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