EarlOfLade

I take it that you believe that Jesus was a historical person who lived as described in the bible?

You are going to hit some snags with the presupposition.

Peter Kirby

What I believe does not matter, or at least should not matter. I should believe that Jesus was a turnip, but still be able to synthesize information in a coherent and sensible way.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Wikipedia has its own article too.

Here is its outline:

I will proceed to provide a mashup and table of which encyclopedia/dictionary covers which aspects of Jesus that one could cover.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

spin

And I can't see that spewing reams of this stuff into a thread is really going to help him.

Peter, what do you want this article to do, where do you want it to go? Is it supposed to be a neutral synthesis of gospel material? Is it to be a non-groveller approach? Should you consider the development of Jesus in post gospel times (as in developmental theology and the nature of Jesus, or additions to the tradition, such as later gospels)?

Just looking for perspective on what you want to do.


spin

EarlOfLade

I agree that in general it doesn't matter but in this case it may do. Are you allowing people to write up articles or sections talking about a mythical Jesus?

Peter Kirby

Yes. (If you are speaking of the Citizendium, I am in no position to allow or disallow anything there. If you are speaking of my article which I plan to submit to the Citizendium, the answer is still yes.)

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

This table shows whether and in what degree of detail the encyclopedias/dictionaries cover some of the elements of the Jesus story. The goal is not to be the biggest X in the most boxes, as one runs up against the problem of competing for the reader's attention concerning the various points. In an encyclopedia article, one must be selective, and with a hyperlinked encyclopedia, one can afford to leave some subjects to be explored more fully on other pages.

With all that in mind, what highlights should the Jesus article we produce hit?

Keep in mind that the main purpose of mine here, is not to push any particular view of Jesus, but rather to bring good credit to the authors and publishers, i.e. to myself as a contributor and other contributors, as well as to the editorial community it is published under. I want the article to make the authors look good, in the eyes of the average, somewhat sophisticated critic. Probably more importantly, but not quite my motivation, I want the article to be as clearly informative to the user as can be expected.

(I hope that goes some way towards answering your question, spin, and in general that this post puts this thread on a better footing.)

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

gstafleu

The main problem with all (most of?) the outlines you have presented is that they do not treat Jesus as a religious phenomenon. Rather, they seem to treat him as a historical phenomenon with (cautiously qualified in some cases) religious connotations.

I think that misses the main point, certainly the point one would, I'd think want to make from an atheistic point of view. Jesus should be treated like Santa Claus, Odin, Zeus, etc. The emphasis should be on how and why people believe in Jesus, how that compares to other beliefs etc. Just rehashing what is in the bible doesn't add much that's new.

So here is a sketch of an outline of an outline.

1 - Development of the Jesus concept: how is Jesus derived from pre-existent and contemporaneous religious concepts. Think Price, and some Doherty. Also think Mysteries and Sun worship. Then think derivation from the OT.

2 - Religious properties of the Jesus concept. This of course overlaps with the previous. Still: what makes Jesus suitable as a religious phenomenon. What does he have in common with other religious phenomena, including the ones he wasn't derived from (so adding to 1). What makes him different (if anything)?

3 - Later development of the Jesus concept. I know BC&H is often a good Lutheran forum (sola scriptura), but what can be said on how Jesus has evolved? What did the catholic church add as "tradition," analogous to heir setting up the Maria cult and all their saints. How do current Jesus concepts compare to what we think he started out as (think dispensational premillennianism e.g.).

To make something new I suspect it is necessary to be etiological more than historical. The hows and whys are more important then the whens and wheres at this point. Not because the history isn't important, but that has been covered in many places. Etiology on the other hand is new(er).

Gerard Stafleu

No Robots

This is a fallacy. Your beliefs affect your inquiry in many ways: your choice of subject matter itself, the selection and arrangement of data, and the conclusions you draw therefrom. The claim that you operate from an entirely neutral position in your presentation has to be treated with the utmost suspicion. Your refusal to clarify your position only increases this need to regard your work critically.

skinumb

This would get my vote. As an atheist I don't need another NT summary or biography. Just link me to those. Set out for me the educated hows, whys and impact of a non-Gospel 'Jesus' as a jumping off point for further study.

rich