Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 06-30-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biomystic

I believe Mark created a play-like dramatic story plot with scenes and episodes where the Sayings and prophesies could be placed in a story context of Jesus' ministry. The other NT writers filled in Mark's story to make it more plausibly an historical account.

The general concept sounds good, but I don't think we can really say that the gospel of Mark is the original drama. It might be a much older story, with a Jewish spin.

Toto · 07-30-2007, 01:28 PM

Update:

Joseph Hoffmann on The Jesus Project: CSER’s Historical Inquiry contains a pointed history of the various quests for the historical Jesus and this:

Quote:

The Jesus Project, as CSER has named the new effort, is the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence. But we are not neutral, let alone willfully ambiguous, about the objectives of the project itself. We believe in assessing the quality of the evidence available for looking at this question before seeing what the evidence has to tell us. We do not believe the task is to produce a "plausible" portrait of Jesus prior to considering the motives and goals of the Gospel writers in telling his story. We think the history and culture of the times provide many significant clues about the character of figures similar to Jesus. We believe the mixing of theological motives and historical inquiry is impermissible. We regard previous attempts to rule the question out of court as vestiges of a time when the Church controlled the boundaries of permissible inquiry into its sacred books. More directly, we regard the question of the historical Jesus as a testable hypothesis, and we are committed to no prior conclusions about the outcome of our inquiry. This is a statement of our principles, and we intend to stick to them.

There is also an "op ed" from Tom Flynn:

Quote:

What might result from this initiative? If cutting-edge research should yield incontrovertible proof that the founder of Christianity is a mythic construct, don’t expect the world to change overnight. For one thing, millions of Christians will simply reject its findings. Additionally, among those who study religion objectively, it is already well known that new faiths can elicit immense personal sacrifices from first-generation converts—despite their first-hand knowledge that the new faith’s teachings don’t quite align with ground truth. Consider the Mormon pioneers who knew Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or both—warts and all—yet willingly laid down their lives for the church many of them had seen one or both of those men concoct from whole cloth. Nothing about the earliest Christians—not even the eagerness with which some of them embraced martyrdom—should be surprising to serious historians, if, as some scholars think, Christianity never had an actual Jesus but rather a gradually accreting "just-so" story about a figure by that name.

For the same reasons, we should not expect the Jesus Project’s conclusions to sound the death knell for Christianity. Through most of the twentieth century, historically sophisticated Christian clergy and theologians made the choice to maintain their faith commitments despite their new understandings that, by and large, their religion’s self-proclaimed founding events never actually occurred. That’s not my idea of rationality, but it’s the option many sophisticated liberals exercise. On the long view, it will be more than enough if the Jesus Project can help to create a climate that encourages more rank-and-file Christians to form similarly nuanced understandings of their faith. (If some of them take the next two or three steps further, abandon supernaturalism, and embrace secular humanism, so much the better - but that cannot be our goal.) One might even hope that this process might provide an example in light of which more Muslims in the West can come to understand their faith, too, as a historical artifact. Want to talk about prospective impact? That’s impact enough for a dozen projects.

Chris Weimer · 08-02-2007, 11:46 AM

If anyone has been keeping up, several of the fellows listed said they didn't even know about the project.

http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=308

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/22388

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/...jesus-project/

Toto · 08-02-2007, 02:23 PM

I am very sympathetic to this group, but I have to say that a lot of it sounds like media-grabbing showmanship. It is being run by the Center for Inquiry, which means that Paul Kurtz is in control, and there will be some organizational problems and miscommunications along the way.

But that CrossTalk thread sounds like pure gossip. If you have some questions on the project, why not email the people in charge and ask?

Zeichman · 08-02-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am very sympathetic to this group, but I have to say that a lot of it sounds like media-grabbing showmanship. It is being run by the Center for Inquiry, which means that Paul Kurtz is in control, and there will be some organizational problems and miscommunications along the way.

But that CrossTalk thread sounds like pure gossip. If you have some questions on the project, why not email the people in charge and ask?

There's no real contact for the project as a whole, though I think Chris Heard on his blog said something about e-mailing them. Who else that is moderately prolific online that is listed is yet to be contacted? Price, Crossley, Doherty, Carrier. Given that Price's wife (iirc) is the webmaster, he presumably knew about it before the site was created. She did a great job designing it, if I may say so.

Given that we know at least four fellows were not really "invited" (DeConick, Tabor, Kloppenborg, and Bauckham) but more or less came across the fact that they were listed as members by chance, it doesn't seem to be as well planned as it could be. Perhaps the naysayers will be shown wrong. There's still quite a few big names on there which would lead to some sort of dialogue. Should be interesting either way.

And it looks like Bauckham has now been removed from the list: http://www.jesus-project.com/fellows.htm

Zeichman · 08-09-2007, 05:35 PM

More Updates:
Price writes about it here and here. His comments seem to confirm what DeConick said about the invitation list.

The fellows list has been taken down.

See Jim West's series of updates here: http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/...jesus-project/

The comments are worth viewing, too. Marcus Borg has said he has nothing to do with it, too.

I hope I don't come off as too eager about this, since I am definitely a bit disappointed that some of the more mainstream scholars will not be participating. Price is right insofar as that it is a shame that CSER got a bit too excited about this and posted things too early. I am quite interested to see how mainstream individuals would have interacted with more creative and non-traditional thinking.

Toto · 10-07-2007, 01:14 PM

Robert Price has posted this from Joseph Hoffmann:

Jesus Project or Jesus Squad?

pertinent points:

Quote:

I apologize for the delay in responding to concerns raised by the Jesus Project website, called to my attention by Gerd Luedemann. I have been away from the blogosphere teaching a course at the Moscow State University summer session, aptly titled "From Religion to Science". I must say, the whole eruption strikes me as a bit strange and misinformed. Let me explain what I believe to be the origin of the confusion. As always, the facts are rather more mundane than the speculation to which internet musings give rise.

. . .

Anticipating a formal launch of its academic work in 2008, the Project floated (I have to stress this word) a website. It is here that an element of confusion enters the picture. While the website was only a model of things to come, a compilation of biographies of the entire list—UCD, listserv, and "under consideration"--was posted to the site together with some sample texts as active information. What was meant as a test has lingered on the site as a done deal. This was done largely because we were being hammered for information and were late in conceptualizing the site itself. The posting was premature; the website was not flagged as under construction. Results ran ahead of planning. Indeed, the website was (is) a work in progress: Even at the time of this writing, only a fraction of the 50 scholars comprising the Project have been chosen and perhaps they will not finally be chosen until January 2008. A fair number of those whose biographies were floated had already been deselected. My own work schedule has kept me—and there is real guilt in this—from surveilling the progress of the site, which I regarded as internet clay and not the pot. The very tentative nature of the site was not made clear on the site itself, and should have been.

. . .

One thing is certain, the dead horse theory that has prevented scholars from taking up the question in earnest has also encouraged extreme and fantastic answers to the question of Jesus' existence by a new generation of myth-theorists outside the academy and pan-gnosticists within. The Project is cold comfort equally for those who want to spin cosmic Christs and those who say no-one takes the question of non-historicity seriously any more. It is a mark, perhaps, of a malaise in biblical criticism that pivotal questions cannot be taken seriously. It is a challenge to fantasists and to those who are just completing their masterworks on the "real" Jesus, the perennial genre. The Jesus Project will have its enemies.

I (politely) ask the blogmasters to desist from speculation based on misinformation, or worse; the desire to do harm: I recognize no names, among the bloggers, of anyone who has been invited at any stage to participate in the JP. (If they wish to submit a cv for consideration, I encourage them to do so.) I do, alas, recognize a few names of people who might want to see its work summarily dismissed and discredited. What a shame. I ask they hold their fire until there is something to assess and not try to thwart us at the beginning of an organizational period. It serves neither serious NT scholarship nor the nonparochial study of biblical literature if those who wish the Project harm are enabled to dominate discussion of the Project's purposes, especially through the uncontrolled methods of Bible-blog.

A final note, the sinister: In several cases the opponents of the JP have attempted to intimidate scholars who have been named as members of the Project. Members of the JP have been approached by one Jesus Squad advocate with this language:

"I am surprised to learn that you are listed on the website of the 'Jesus' Project' sponsored by the atheist Center for Inquiry." Other approaches have used the phrase "founded by Paul Kurtz and R. Joseph Hoffmann." One hardly knows what to make of such a query, or what an unsuspecting recipient would make of it. The Jesus Project is defined by a clear purpose; that purpose is not limited to the interests of biblical theology. To associate it with an organization dedicated to science, reason and free inquiry—surely not atheism—could only enhance that purpose. But in fact, the Project is not sponsored by the Center for Inquiry; it's associated with an organization I have chaired for several years and helped to found in 1983, CSER, the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. The Center has no direct interest in the Project or control over its conclusions. Paul Kurtz is not a member of the Project nor its founder.

It remains to be restated: The Jesus Project is methodologically agnostic about the existence of Jesus. While it understands the theological contexts out of which the biblical materials arises, It is also programmatically non-theological. There is nothing to fear from such an investigation. The responses of a few so far expresses a fear of open and honest discussion. The website when it is ready for public view will reflect the state of plnd not the state of discussion. I hope that this will satisfy our opponents in the same measure it tries the patience of our supporters. More than this, I hope that those who now oppose the Project will learn to support it as they come to a fuller understanding of its objectives.

To end this on a conciliatory note: granted that the website engendered confusion, it is best now to move on. If anyone within eyeshot of these words has an interest in the project—keeping it honest, above board, and free of the trammels that have crippled similar efforts: please write to me. I welcome serious and direct inquiries and will do my best, now that I am stateside again, to answer them fully and in a timely fashion.

R. Joseph Hoffmann

Chair, CSER

Toto · 10-07-2007, 05:00 PM

I guess I'm a little late in picking this up (in internet time).

NTGateway and comments and comments on Neonostalgia. Contrary to some of the comments, it does not appear that Hoffmann is targeting Christians in particular, although Hoffman's vague reference to the "Jesus Squad" opens the door to that.

Also April DeConick's blog.

Conclusion (which I knew): Hoffmann is not web savy. But the Project still has the potential of bringing some light to the subject.

Zeichman · 10-08-2007, 08:42 PM

Not to toot my own horn, but yeah, Hoffmann clarifies things a bit in his response to my post on Neonostalgia.

Cf. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/response_rjh.htm - Hoffmann's original response

and http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/proceed.htm - Robert M. Price's response to April DeConick

http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/...jesus-project/ - Jim West has a pretty good set of links, too. However, he stopped updating after a while.

The Jesus Project website remains un-updated, as far as I can tell.

EarlDoherty · 10-09-2007, 08:58 AM

To judge by Hoffman's "Response" and Price's response to DeConick, The Jesus Project should simply call itself another “Quest for the Historical Jesus” (what is it now, the Fourth? Fifth?). The only difference is that it is stated as part of its mandate that it will not assume the existence of an HJ a priori, but adopt an "agnostic" stance on the question.

That's fine, if this is what had been conveyed about it from the start. But the problem is, it was not. The impression created, and helped along by the media, was that this would be, at least in part, a direct investigation of the question of Jesus' existence. But I cannot see the vast majority of the participants being willing to do that, and thus it will be shunted aside immediately, 'agnosticism' being observed only in an ignored and irrelevant principle.

Because of that mis-impression (or misrepresentation), you have people on various blogs (like Chris Weimer I think it was) who adamantly resist Jesus mythicism, complaining (probably on no basis they would have to worry about) about a bunch of amateurs "outside the academy" being invited to put forward their crazy views, and then Hoffman himself answering in a similar negative fashion that such people are a priori regarded as at one end of a spectrum of those who would find little or no happiness on the Project.

But who are those who are seriously questioning Jesus' existence inside the "academy"? There are none. If only those in academia are allowed to be considered as legitimate investigators of the question, then the question itself is excluded and the exclusion becomes circular. If Christ-mythers are relegated by Hoffman to some loony end of the spectrum, who is going to "seriously" attend to the existence question at Project meetings? How can some acceptable "non-existence" of Jesus even be defined in an 'agnostic' setting, let alone be considered as a viable option, if views like my own are already rejected, regardless of their wide exposure and even support?

Tom Flynn, in an Op-Ed piece "The Jesus Project" in the April/May Free Inquiry said: "The mission will be to apply the most current scholarship and methodologies to the questions...the Jesus Seminar never confronted: Did the historical Jesus even exist? If so, what can we know of him? He made it sound like the first phase of the Project would be the first question. I now seriously doubt that. In fact, I'd bet the family farm it will not. They will immediately go on to the second. The Project has gotten itself into all sorts of trouble by floating that first question--or seeming to. They've gotten flak from both sides: people like Chris Weimer who want to exclude the only people who have anything to seriously say on the matter, and people like Crossan who have now withdrawn their names from the "list" of Fellows, presumably because they cannot bring themselves to be associated with a group that is ostensibly to seriously question Jesus' existence.

So it seems we have not at all progressed beyond the now-traditional groups and positions which have been willing to apply critical scholarship and open minds to everything except the question of Jesus’ very existence, one that rejects even the reduced “genuine” Jesus of the Seminar. We apparently still have to await that last critical step in mainstream scholarship for what--another generation? It shows that the non-“academy” community, such as those who frequent boards like this one, is still miles ahead of established academia in its innovation and courage.

There was a rumor going round that I was on the “list of Fellows” in its ‘tentative’ stage (I was unaware), but that stage has apparently been withdrawn in haste, and no doubt will be replaced by one less controversial. I certainly have heard nothing from anyone on the Project with an invitation to attend, let alone to take part. I’m not sure I would be willing to do so unless I knew that an honest examination, on some level, was going to made on the key question. I gather, in any case, that the opening meeting, which I understood had been scheduled for December (where, I don’t know) has now been postponed until some time in 2008.

Earl Doherty

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2007, 11:46 AM	#53
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	If anyone has been keeping up, several of the fellows listed said they didn't even know about the project. http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?p=308 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/22388 http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/...jesus-project/

08-02-2007, 02:23 PM	#54
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am very sympathetic to this group, but I have to say that a lot of it sounds like media-grabbing showmanship. It is being run by the Center for Inquiry, which means that Paul Kurtz is in control, and there will be some organizational problems and miscommunications along the way. But that CrossTalk thread sounds like pure gossip. If you have some questions on the project, why not email the people in charge and ask?

08-09-2007, 05:35 PM	#56
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	More Updates: Price writes about it here and here. His comments seem to confirm what DeConick said about the invitation list. The fellows list has been taken down. See Jim West's series of updates here: http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/...jesus-project/ The comments are worth viewing, too. Marcus Borg has said he has nothing to do with it, too. I hope I don't come off as too eager about this, since I am definitely a bit disappointed that some of the more mainstream scholars will not be participating. Price is right insofar as that it is a shame that CSER got a bit too excited about this and posted things too early. I am quite interested to see how mainstream individuals would have interacted with more creative and non-traditional thinking.

10-07-2007, 05:00 PM	#58
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I guess I'm a little late in picking this up (in internet time). NTGateway and comments and comments on Neonostalgia. Contrary to some of the comments, it does not appear that Hoffmann is targeting Christians in particular, although Hoffman's vague reference to the "Jesus Squad" opens the door to that. Also April DeConick's blog. Conclusion (which I knew): Hoffmann is not web savy. But the Project still has the potential of bringing some light to the subject.

10-08-2007, 08:42 PM	#59
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Not to toot my own horn, but yeah, Hoffmann clarifies things a bit in his response to my post on Neonostalgia. Cf. http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/response_rjh.htm - Hoffmann's original response and http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/proceed.htm - Robert M. Price's response to April DeConick http://drjimwest.wordpress.com/2007/...jesus-project/ - Jim West has a pretty good set of links, too. However, he stopped updating after a while. The Jesus Project website remains un-updated, as far as I can tell.

10-09-2007, 08:58 AM	#60
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	To judge by Hoffman's "Response" and Price's response to DeConick, The Jesus Project should simply call itself another “Quest for the Historical Jesus” (what is it now, the Fourth? Fifth?). The only difference is that it is stated as part of its mandate that it will not assume the existence of an HJ a priori, but adopt an "agnostic" stance on the question. That's fine, if this is what had been conveyed about it from the start. But the problem is, it was not. The impression created, and helped along by the media, was that this would be, at least in part, a direct investigation of the question of Jesus' existence. But I cannot see the vast majority of the participants being willing to do that, and thus it will be shunted aside immediately, 'agnosticism' being observed only in an ignored and irrelevant principle. Because of that mis-impression (or misrepresentation), you have people on various blogs (like Chris Weimer I think it was) who adamantly resist Jesus mythicism, complaining (probably on no basis they would have to worry about) about a bunch of amateurs "outside the academy" being invited to put forward their crazy views, and then Hoffman himself answering in a similar negative fashion that such people are a priori regarded as at one end of a spectrum of those who would find little or no happiness on the Project. But who are those who are seriously questioning Jesus' existence inside the "academy"? There are none. If only those in academia are allowed to be considered as legitimate investigators of the question, then the question itself is excluded and the exclusion becomes circular. If Christ-mythers are relegated by Hoffman to some loony end of the spectrum, who is going to "seriously" attend to the existence question at Project meetings? How can some acceptable "non-existence" of Jesus even be defined in an 'agnostic' setting, let alone be considered as a viable option, if views like my own are already rejected, regardless of their wide exposure and even support? Tom Flynn, in an Op-Ed piece "The Jesus Project" in the April/May Free Inquiry said: "The mission will be to apply the most current scholarship and methodologies to the questions...the Jesus Seminar never confronted: Did the historical Jesus even exist? If so, what can we know of him? He made it sound like the first phase of the Project would be the first question. I now seriously doubt that. In fact, I'd bet the family farm it will not. They will immediately go on to the second. The Project has gotten itself into all sorts of trouble by floating that first question--or seeming to. They've gotten flak from both sides: people like Chris Weimer who want to exclude the only people who have anything to seriously say on the matter, and people like Crossan who have now withdrawn their names from the "list" of Fellows, presumably because they cannot bring themselves to be associated with a group that is ostensibly to seriously question Jesus' existence. So it seems we have not at all progressed beyond the now-traditional groups and positions which have been willing to apply critical scholarship and open minds to everything except the question of Jesus’ very existence, one that rejects even the reduced “genuine” Jesus of the Seminar. We apparently still have to await that last critical step in mainstream scholarship for what--another generation? It shows that the non-“academy” community, such as those who frequent boards like this one, is still miles ahead of established academia in its innovation and courage. There was a rumor going round that I was on the “list of Fellows” in its ‘tentative’ stage (I was unaware), but that stage has apparently been withdrawn in haste, and no doubt will be replaced by one less controversial. I certainly have heard nothing from anyone on the Project with an invitation to attend, let alone to take part. I’m not sure I would be willing to do so unless I knew that an honest examination, on some level, was going to made on the key question. I gather, in any case, that the opening meeting, which I understood had been scheduled for December (where, I don’t know) has now been postponed until some time in 2008. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.