spin

I think it does. We know how the "maximalist" gets to the conclusion that Jesus existed, due to a commitment to the source material. We know how the "historicist" gets to the same conclusion based on assumptions about history. Hopefully we know how the person who cannot see past the tradition can't say that Jesus existed or not, because of their understanding of the transmission of the tropes. The "fictionalist" usually constructs a conspiracy theory. We do need to know how Wells gets where he got, as I really need to know how the analyst who constructs Jesus out of Egyptian mythological tropes gets there.

As you are presenting it, it seems more of an opinion than an analysis...

You may be right (but then I have mountainman on permanent ignore). Wells apparently has some way of knowing how the data got into the tradition. I can't see that he is really any further than I am with Paul.

So Miriam in "Sons and Lovers" is modeled after Lawrence's mother, but what does that say about the historicity of Miriam?

Why not just make a proposal for an entry for Wells's position, or just edit the table?


spin

maryhelena

OK, spin - it's your chart - so your free to set the conditions for admission....

Pity though as Wells has much to offer for any attempt to break the dead-lock between the historicists and the mythicists....

Since you missed out on mountainman's chart from Price.......here is the relevant category....

hjalti

Hurrah!

You can put Robert M. Price in the "Published Proponents" of "Jesus agnostic" (maybe just "Agnostic" is sufficient), IIRC he argues for that in a book or two.

hjalti

A question regarding the table: In which category would the "orthodox" Jesus fit?

That is: "Jesus existed in the supernatural realm and became a real historical person in the incarnation."

funinspace

All the other first column entries give hints to what was the entity named "Jesus" or "Christ". Doctrinal and Maximal just seem kind of flat. Wouldn't it be more fitting to use something like: demi-god or god?

spin

That's not the attitude. I'm trying to get out of you something clearer. It's not that it is my chart, but that I want clarity. So... I'm not trying to exclude Wells. I'd like anything that is presented for beginners in this stuff to be able to understand without going away with the wrong idea.

What exactly does "fabricated" mean here? Did the real person(s) do (some of) the things? Were the writers aware that they were fabricating material? If so, is this equivalent to the frequent accusations here of fraud? How according to this point of view did the narrative get from real person to gospel text? Was there a tradition phase or did they hit papyrus from conception. If they came through tradition, how does one know the origin of the tropes?

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center}Status
|
{c:ah=center}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Maximal
|
Existed in real world
|
The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Historical
|
Existed in real world
|
Literary records, gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources, contain vestiges of real world knowledge of the man who started the religion.
|
Borg, Crossan & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Mythological
|
Existed in supernatural world
|
Origin as a purely theological development, that later became reified.
|
Earl Doherty
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Fictional
|
Created
|
Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. Usually Roman conspiracy, usually to control populations.
|
Francesco Carotta, Joe Atwill
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Traditional
|
Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
Unknown
||
{c:bg=DeepSkyBlue}Anecdotal
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}"Fabricated"
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Jesus was the product of various sources including a real person or real people.
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}George Wells
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Jesus agnostic
|
Unknown
|
Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Robert M. Price[/T2]

I should really find some other title than "Traditional" to allude to the workings of a tradition, as there is a more common meaning of the term which I'd guess interferes with the precise meaning of the word. Traditional, old time, usual, etc.

I still can't see that "Anecdotal" is really any different from "Traditional" other than Wells holds a view whose basis I can't see. (But then, I can't see how the "cribbed out of earlier myths" is supposed to have actually progressed either.) Did Well use the term "fabricated"?

As I understand it this is a variety of maximal Jesus supported by the (lumpen) faithful. Or not?

I thought that was extra information, rather than a reflection of the reality of Jesus per se and how we know about it. The term "maximal" here relates to how the proponents approach the sources, which is fundamentally how the supporters of the Jesus of faith approach them.


spin

hjalti

Hmm... that list might be overpopulated.

I was wondering whether we really should make a difference between "historical" and "maximal".

Isn't the relevant difference between those we put in "maximal" and the "historical" not that the former think that four specific historical sources are ~100% reliable, but that they think that Jesus was god in flesh? Isn't that the different "type of Jesus"?

Or am I misunderstanding what this table is all about?

maryhelena

Fine - wanting clarity for your chart. But in this HJ verse MJ debate clarity is a long way off....
I'll admit to being surprised that Wells was not in your original chart. After all, even Doherty has a hard time with his incarnation in a sublunar realm - so perhaps a little leeway is warranted in regard to ideas that one does not personally find engaging.
"Fabricated" is from Price not from Wells. And since this word can have a negative connotation then the use of 'created' would be a better choice.
The trouble with your 'Traditional' is that it has used 'real' and 'non-real' - thus excluding the historical. I don't actually care for "Anecdotal' either. It seems to put too much emphasis upon the 'story' as opposed to the historical elements that would have given rise to the 'story'. So, spin, some work for that great mind of yours ?

Just an afterthought. From the earlier quote from Doherty's website how can you still confine his position to being purely mythological?


The question then becomes - if historical figures have been used in the creation of the mythological Jesus figure - do we not then have a fusion of the historical and the mythological? An overlap of categories - necessitating a new category for your chart that would reflect this fusion....

spin

I was hoping for a Dohertonian to try to give more sense to that position.

The "created" of the fictional approach is "newly imagined".

This is pretty simple, yet a lot of people champ over the implications of history. How can any particular receiver of an oral tradition evaluate the quality of source materials? How can they tell if there is veracity in it or not? This is rather ordinary epistemology.

The distinction from traditional, other than the fact that Wells believes that there was a human source in there somewhere, doesn't seem clear to me, so I can't help. I'm fishing for clarity, so you can't expect me to supply anything better.

This is why I mentioned Miriam in "Sons and Lovers". She's modeled on Lawrence's mother, but does that change the fictional nature of the character? Theophrastus's Characters are based on observations of life (and conventions of ancient literature), but who would argue that they represent historical figures? People repackage reality for both fictional and mythological worlds. A director, interpreting a writer's script, will picture characters based on real life experience and actors will do similarly from their own observational experiences. So, sure, "elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth". Does that change the basic nature of Doherty's analysis?

Where are all those Dohertonians out there? And doesn't the performer once known as Acharya S have supporters here?


spin

maryhelena

Of course not - however many real or historical figures were used in the creation of the Jesus figure - that figure remains a created mythological figure. All acknowledgement of the makeup elements of this mythological Jesus figure does is give the Jesus figure a context - a historical context when historical figures have been used. Indeed, we have Pilate for the crucifixion storyline - the grand finale. But the Jesus figure itself - if drawn from, or influenced by, the lives of historical figures, allows the context of the gospel storyline to become far wider than the limited rule by Pilate.

(ie if the Jesus figure is mythological - then the birthdate/s and age at baptism/start of preaching are not of any relevance to a historical inquiry - only Pilate's dating would be of interest re the time-slot for the crucifixion storyline...)

A fusion of history and mythology within the Jesus figure would widen the field of inquiry away from Pilate's limited period of rule - thus providing a broader historical canvas that could serve as inspiration in the creating of the Jesus storyboard.

Sure, one could say it's all irrelevant what historical figures have been used in the creation of the Jesus figure - that it's this created figure that matters for theological purposes. Indeed. But if it's the history of early Christianity we are after - we surely need to get behind the theology and try and discern what historical figures were deemed to be relevant. Why this historical figure and not that one etc.

Either early christian ideas were all in Paul's head, in his imagination, in his flights of pure fantasy, floating abstractions - or they had a historical component fused with his imagination. And, at the end of the day - which of these two alternatives would be able to sell? I'd put my money on the fused history and mythology any day....In the early days of course. With time this created Jesus figure, a fusion of history and mythology, became 'real' - and the rest, as they say, is history.....