gstafleu

I think an intermediate form between 6 and 7 is needed: 6.5) The Gospels are mythology derived from both jewish and non-jewish sources. Now for the sake of brevity perhaps 6 and 7 could be collapsed into: The Gospels are mythology derived from jewish and/or non-jewish sources. I would also suggest that "mythology" is a bit more neutral than "fabricated stories," plus that term ties the Gospels to a known field of research.

Gerard Stafleu

Chris Weimer

Definitely needs to add another one in between 1 and 2. I myself would, with a bit of tweaking, fall somewhere in between 3 and 4.

jeffevnz

My understanding was that MJ positions like 5-7 were gaining adherents, at least among secular scholars.

For my part, I'm at 3 or 4. Only the embarassing details argument keeps me from being an MJer.

OneInFundieville

As an ex-fundie I thought I'd post the Engel Scale.



Many fundies use to discuss evangelism.

Originally from this book. The book's selling used on eBay for 11 cents if you want to pick up a copy.

Here's a write up on some guy's twist on it.

Could be what a fundie's thinking you're (supposed to be :banghead: ) thinking and what he or she thinks is the next step for you.

Easy to poke at.

Interesting how it philosophically differs from what's been discussed here...

Gregg

I guess # 6 comes closest to my view, but it's a stretch. Here's what I'd say:

The gospels do not tell the story of a historical person. Christianity prior to the gospels consisted of various beliefs in a heavenly intermediary, probably derived mainly from the Greek concept of the Logos. Some believed this heavenly intermediary saved by imparting mystical knowledge, others by taking on the likeness of flesh and undergoing death and resurrection (but not on Earth). The author of the first gospel, "Mark," held the latter view. He wrote his gospel purely as allegory, bringing his divine Christ to Earth in a semi-historical setting, not intending that it should be taken literally. He structured the gospel on the 5 books of the Torah (perhaps so his Christian community could follow the Jewish liturgical calendar, but with their own readings) and drew the details of the passion and crucifixion from scripture. Later, other writers copied large chunks of his manuscript but also freely added to it, chopped up his structure, and changed things to fit their own needs and perspectives.

gurugeorge

That's a great bit of work there, nice one.

I think the trouble with this that there are really 2 parallel spectrums - one for people who believe there's something supernatural or (as rationalists would call it "woo") about the universe, and another spectrum for rationalists and materialists who believe there's no supernatural element to the universe at all.

Having the full-blown supernatural godman at one end and an out and out con job at the other is a result of mixing these two spectra up.

The supernaturalists' spectrum would have full-blown Messiah at one end and (still supernatural but) conjob at the other (i.e. "Christianity was originally a true revelation or religion, but a broad movement without a Jesus, that eventually got co-opted and ruined", for example). The rationalist's spectrum would have no room for the full-blown godman at one end, and would have to start at the top somewhere with "Remarkable preacher who caused a great stir, for whose existence we have, for some reason, little solid evidence", with "pure" conjob - e.g. political - at the other end).

Zeichman

One way I think might kind of work is to list a bunch of representative quotes attributed to Jesus in the gospels and a bunch of acts attributed to him, and then just have one count how many of each one identifies as authentic. That might take a bit of work, and isn't really a spectrum, but whatever.


Um.... no. I know of no scholar with a Ph.D. in New Testament Literature who would identify him or herself as a Jesus-mythicist. Not even Price commits to it. If you want to talk about amateurs, that's another thing, but I'm guessing almost all scholars would dismiss 5-8 as conspiracy theories and not even worthy of refutation.

exile

Well yes - would you become an NT scholar if you thought the whole thing was baloney?

drewjmore

I have a view that is not represented in the scale, but could be added in the '2' region:

2b) A real Jesus, John his cousin, family & friends, etc. represented a cult whose purpose was to re-form grass-roots judaism in opposition to their various oppressors. They were performers who used charismatic teaching & prestidigitation skills to promote a contemporary minority sub-set of hebrew theology & social engineering (blending-in other contemporary traditions). Following generations maintained knowledge of the founders through storytelling & reenactments, and eventually through written correspondence & codification. {also, some blather about memetic evolution}

-djm [sometimes I get so far 'out there' that I ignore myself...]

No Robots

Summary:

jeffevnz: Those awesome scholars are mythicists!

Zeichman: Er, no they aren't.

exile: Aw! Those scholars are complete 'tards!