Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 12:04 PM

Maximalism

"Maximalism" is the Christian orthodox traditional way to make sense (or nonsense) of the contents of their own canon. They interpret and believe the claims within the modern Bible as literally as practically possible. That is their dogma. When they are cornered and they face a dilemma that would demonstrate the clearest absurdity of such a tendency, then they may make a small compromise--OK, maybe the saints didn't literally rise from their graves and haunt Jerusalem, but it was an allegory. OK, maybe the gospel authors weren't quite perfect in their accounts, but they were not far off. Their prejudices lead them to accept the canonical claims as maximally as they can without looking completely ridiculous in light of the limited historical evidence.

Minimalism

The term "maximalism" was coined as a rebuttal from the minimalists. "Minimalism" goes in exactly the opposite direction. It is the reactionary point of view against the maximalists. They believe as little as practically possible within the Christian canon. When they are cornered and they face a dilemma that would demonstrate the clearest absurdity of such a tendency, then they may make a small compromise--OK, maybe John the Baptist really was a historical person, but he is incorporated into a relationship with a mythical figure. OK, maybe Nazareth really was an actual town, but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with "Jesus of Nazareth." OK, maybe the gospels were not composed as late as we would like to think, but let's still push them as late as the physical evidence permits. Their prejudices lead them to accept the canonical claims as minimally as they can without looking completely ridiculous in light of the limited historical evidence.

EDIT: I am using a somewhat different definition of the word, "minimalism." When I say, "minimalists," it should be taken to mean those, especially the Jesus-mythers and Jesus-skeptics, who are strongly inclined to think that all parts of the Bible including the New Testament are minimal in history. The word is more typically applied to some scholars of the Old Testament.

Probability

I propose a perspective based on probability, not on prejudice. It is somewhere in the center, but don't get the wrong idea--this perspective is NOT made reasonable by being in the center. It is a perspective that is made reasonable by best fitting the evidence. If the evidence best fits a maximalist perspective, then that is the perspective we should take, such as if the evidence were modern video news footage. If the evidence best fits a minimalist perspective, then that is the perspective we should take, such as if we were reading the Oedipus Rex or the book of Genesis. As for the New Testament, the evidence really does fit a perspective that lies in between. The canonical New Testament clearly is littered with the falsehoods of Christian cultist myths--miracles, unlikely prophetic quotes, unlikely preachings, all to make Jesus look like a wonderful guy. But, very probably, neither did the Christian myth simply invent Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Simon Magus, Nazareth, the passover celebration in Jerusalem, crucifixions in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate, the temple of Jerusalem, Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, and a first-century traveling Christian evangelistic doomsday cult. If it were purely myth, then there is an unusual amount of historical elements and characters contained within it, something we don't see so much in Oedipus Rex or the Genesis stories.

Suppose that Josephus neglected to mention John the Baptist because he just didn't care. Or, suppose that Josephus wrote insultingly of John the Baptist, and Christians interpolated that passage to make him say something positive, the same way they changed the Testimonium Flavianum. Would not the minimalists of today then assert that John the Baptist was an invention by Christians? They very probably would, but of course that is not a conclusion that would best follow from the evidence. Something is not necessarily invented by the gospel authors even if the gospel authors and their adherents are the only ones in history who say anything about it. Such is not a reasonable way to make sense of the evidence. More than anything, it is an assertion that would follow from mere prejudice.

So, I think that we really do need to make sense of the early Christian writings with a more probabilistic perspective, which in this case is somewhere in the center of the two extreme opposing perspectives. We need to find best explanations for any given claim, and the best explanations may involve historical elements, even if our only knowledge of such things are contained in the untrustworthy writings of ancient Christians.

What do you think?

Toto · 05-24-2011, 12:34 PM

I think you are recycling stuff that you have posted before, except that now you are using two terms, Maximalist and Minimalist, that are more properly used for the relationship of the Hebrew Scriptures to the history of Israel.

I think you are trying to claim the virtuous middle for yourself by painting all other points of view as extremist.

I think that you assume that if you repeat something often enough, people will finally agree with you, even if you never try to understand their objections or engage with their arguments.

I think you should go back and read the post in your Baptism thread from Joe Wallack that you placed hide tags around, and figure out what he was saying about methodology.

Juststeve · 05-24-2011, 01:20 PM

What I think is that Mythers are not minimalists. Minimalists believe in an historic Jesus but believe that very little can be known for certain about him.

Steve

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

What I think is that Mythers are not minimalists. Minimalists believe in an historic Jesus but believe that very little can be known for certain about him.

Steve

Yes, you are right. I am using a different definition of that word, and I should have been more aware of the difference in definitions. When I say, "minimalists," it should be taken to mean those who are strongly inclined to think all parts of the Bible including the New Testament are minimal in history, especially the Jesus-mythers and Jesus-skeptics. And, yeah, not even the "minimalists" as they are commonly known in Old Testament studies go that far.

Sheshbazzar · 05-24-2011, 01:49 PM

Groan. No matter how many times the same old poor composition gets played by the same old out of tune organ, it dosen't ever get any better,
just increasingly monotonous.

Toto · 05-24-2011, 01:52 PM

The terms Minimalist or Maximalist are not ordinarily used in NT studies, except by analogy to the search for ancient Israel in the Bible. In most cases, the analogy is not at all favorable to the search for the historical Jesus.

Consider some easily available sources:

Essays on Minimalism from bibleinterp.com

The latest Minimalism, Maximalism and Objectivity discusses probability as a post modern construct:

Quote:

Philip Davies makes a passing reference to Hayden White,⁸ although in contrast to the post-deconstructionist New Cultural History, he insists that plausibility is not a valid criterion: “The assessment of probability in individual cases is, if not futile, then at least only calculable in a very general measure."⁹ One must therefore “adopt the appropriate degree of a priori doubt or confidence regarding biblical historicity in general.”¹⁰

Neil Godfrey has often commented on minimalism, to make the point that historical Jesus scholars embody the worst sins of the Maximalists:

Vridar on minimalism: The refreshing honesty of Jim West

Quote:

Jim West argues that biblical studies of the history of early Christianity are largely circular, following the same flawed methodology that lay at the heart of the Albrightian [i.e., Maximalist] approach to the history of Israel.

Jim West sums up so much of what I have been attempting to argue for some time now:

Most “histories” of Ancient Israel and Earliest Christianity are simply examples of circular reasoning. Many historians use the Bible as a historical source; they reconstruct a history which is often nothing more than a recapitulation of the biblical telling; and the Bible is affirmed as historical because of the history so constructed. Similarly, the life of Jesus, for instance, is gleaned from a reading of the Gospels. Said reconstruction is named a ‘history of Jesus’ life.” That “history of Jesus’ life” is then utilized to prove historically the life of Jesus as described in the Gospels. One need only pick up John Bright’s “History of Israel” or Joseph Ratzinger’s “Jesus” to see circularity in action. True, ancillary materials are added to these histories (on the very rare occasions that they are available)- but these only reinforce the circularly circumscribed reconstruction.

...

Jim defines minimalism like this:

“Minimalism” is the supposition that the biblical text cannot rightly or honestly be mined for historical reconstructions of ancient Israel or earliest Christianity. The underlying assumption here is that the biblical text is not historically oriented. That is to say, the purpose of the Bible is not to offer 21st century historians fodder for their reconstructive mills; it is to speak theologically to ancient (and I would also say, modern) communities of faith.

So from this, the minimalists are not those who think that a minimal amount of historical information can be gleaned from the Bible, but those who think that the search should not be done.

Abe's attempt to smear Minimalists as grudgingly admitting a few things when backed into a corner is not a helpful way of looking at things. Minimalists do not say that the Bible must be 100% myth, but just that it cannot be used as an independent source of history.

If Abe wants to seriously contend that his opinions are based on probability, he still has to demonstrate that, which he has not done so far.

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 02:27 PM

As will be the case from now on, I won't be arguing with Toto, but I am willing to confront some of Toto's ideas if anyone is willing to repeat them.

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Groan. No matter how many times the same old poor composition gets played by the same old out of tune organ, it dosen't ever get any better,
just increasingly monotonous.

Well, I take at least a little self-respect from the belief that I am thinking about the issues and contributing something. Mistaken belief, maybe? Well, heck, at least I have the delusion of it.

Sheshbazzar · 05-24-2011, 02:56 PM

The issues seem to consist only of what new angles can be employed to reassert the same old apologetic assumptions. Wordy but not impressive.

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The issues seem to consist only of what new angles can be employed to reassert the same old apologetic assumptions.

Certainly new angles. Can you please clarify the apologetic assumptions that you have in mind?

05-24-2011, 12:04 PM	#1
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Maximalism, Minimalism and Probability Maximalism "Maximalism" is the Christian orthodox traditional way to make sense (or nonsense) of the contents of their own canon. They interpret and believe the claims within the modern Bible as literally as practically possible. That is their dogma. When they are cornered and they face a dilemma that would demonstrate the clearest absurdity of such a tendency, then they may make a small compromise--OK, maybe the saints didn't literally rise from their graves and haunt Jerusalem, but it was an allegory. OK, maybe the gospel authors weren't quite perfect in their accounts, but they were not far off. Their prejudices lead them to accept the canonical claims as maximally as they can without looking completely ridiculous in light of the limited historical evidence. Minimalism The term "maximalism" was coined as a rebuttal from the minimalists. "Minimalism" goes in exactly the opposite direction. It is the reactionary point of view against the maximalists. They believe as little as practically possible within the Christian canon. When they are cornered and they face a dilemma that would demonstrate the clearest absurdity of such a tendency, then they may make a small compromise--OK, maybe John the Baptist really was a historical person, but he is incorporated into a relationship with a mythical figure. OK, maybe Nazareth really was an actual town, but that doesn't mean it had anything to do with "Jesus of Nazareth." OK, maybe the gospels were not composed as late as we would like to think, but let's still push them as late as the physical evidence permits. Their prejudices lead them to accept the canonical claims as minimally as they can without looking completely ridiculous in light of the limited historical evidence. EDIT: I am using a somewhat different definition of the word, "minimalism." When I say, "minimalists," it should be taken to mean those, especially the Jesus-mythers and Jesus-skeptics, who are strongly inclined to think that all parts of the Bible including the New Testament are minimal in history. The word is more typically applied to some scholars of the Old Testament. Probability I propose a perspective based on probability, not on prejudice. It is somewhere in the center, but don't get the wrong idea--this perspective is NOT made reasonable by being in the center. It is a perspective that is made reasonable by best fitting the evidence. If the evidence best fits a maximalist perspective, then that is the perspective we should take, such as if the evidence were modern video news footage. If the evidence best fits a minimalist perspective, then that is the perspective we should take, such as if we were reading the Oedipus Rex or the book of Genesis. As for the New Testament, the evidence really does fit a perspective that lies in between. The canonical New Testament clearly is littered with the falsehoods of Christian cultist myths--miracles, unlikely prophetic quotes, unlikely preachings, all to make Jesus look like a wonderful guy. But, very probably, neither did the Christian myth simply invent Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Simon Magus, Nazareth, the passover celebration in Jerusalem, crucifixions in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate, the temple of Jerusalem, Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, and a first-century traveling Christian evangelistic doomsday cult. If it were purely myth, then there is an unusual amount of historical elements and characters contained within it, something we don't see so much in Oedipus Rex or the Genesis stories. Suppose that Josephus neglected to mention John the Baptist because he just didn't care. Or, suppose that Josephus wrote insultingly of John the Baptist, and Christians interpolated that passage to make him say something positive, the same way they changed the Testimonium Flavianum. Would not the minimalists of today then assert that John the Baptist was an invention by Christians? They very probably would, but of course that is not a conclusion that would best follow from the evidence. Something is not necessarily invented by the gospel authors even if the gospel authors and their adherents are the only ones in history who say anything about it. Such is not a reasonable way to make sense of the evidence. More than anything, it is an assertion that would follow from mere prejudice. So, I think that we really do need to make sense of the early Christian writings with a more probabilistic perspective, which in this case is somewhere in the center of the two extreme opposing perspectives. We need to find best explanations for any given claim, and the best explanations may involve historical elements, even if our only knowledge of such things are contained in the untrustworthy writings of ancient Christians. What do you think?

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

05-24-2011, 12:34 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think you are recycling stuff that you have posted before, except that now you are using two terms, Maximalist and Minimalist, that are more properly used for the relationship of the Hebrew Scriptures to the history of Israel. I think you are trying to claim the virtuous middle for yourself by painting all other points of view as extremist. I think that you assume that if you repeat something often enough, people will finally agree with you, even if you never try to understand their objections or engage with their arguments. I think you should go back and read the post in your Baptism thread from Joe Wallack that you placed hide tags around, and figure out what he was saying about methodology.

05-24-2011, 01:20 PM	#3
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	What I think is that Mythers are not minimalists. Minimalists believe in an historic Jesus but believe that very little can be known for certain about him. Steve

05-24-2011, 01:49 PM	#5
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Groan. No matter how many times the same old poor composition gets played by the same old out of tune organ, it dosen't ever get any better, just increasingly monotonous.

05-24-2011, 02:27 PM	#7
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	As will be the case from now on, I won't be arguing with Toto, but I am willing to confront some of Toto's ideas if anyone is willing to repeat them.

05-24-2011, 02:56 PM	#9
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The issues seem to consist only of what new angles can be employed to reassert the same old apologetic assumptions. Wordy but not impressive.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.