spin

Here's the latest version with a few corrections and improvements, including reordering and horizontal divisions.

[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;b-b=2,solid,black}Historical
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Literary records, gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources, contain vestiges of real world knowledge of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Borg, Crossan & Jesus seminar
||
{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=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Unknown
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Robert M. Price
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}"Anecdotal"
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Jesus was the product of various sources including a real person or real people.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}George Wells
||
{c:bg=DeepSkyBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}Transformed
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,dashed,black}Did not exist
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,dashed,black}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,dashed,black}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Fictional
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. Usually Roman conspiracy, usually to control populations.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Joe Atwill
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Mythological
|
Existed in supernatural world
|
Origin as a purely theological development, that later became reified.
|
Earl Doherty
[/T2]

To classify it, Carotta's position seems to be half way between Well's and Atwill's. The label "Anecdotal" for Wells is in search of something more appropriate. Wells's position isn't really that far from the two positions above it, except for knowing somehow that there were original real world models for his Jesus.

There are a couple of positions that aren't here that might be useful to include: the views of Freke/Gandy and Murdock, ie the borrowing from mythological precursors. Any takers?

Do we have any neutral presentations of any of these positions in the archives?


spin

Chili

Is there something wrong with Jesus existing in truth or in truth by any other name in the function that he represents in our mythology? Let me add here that in reality only beauty and truth is real which kind of is what mythology tries to present.

Oh, I like your Tradition but that can only be maintained if it bears fruit as it did for Joseph who was said to be an upright Jew because he encountered Jesus-in-function in his life. Encountered, I say, because it happened to him when he was 'pregnant with despair' shall we say, that was more like a 20 year gestation period on account of his tithing that built the ark to keep him and his household afloat so he could get to the other side of life . . . for which he than also had hewn a tomb [as if out of rock], to say that he may have been a devout Jew but for good reason was said to be a [wily] carpenter as well. That is: a sinner he was! (and worthy to be the Catholic patron saint of the famliy)

Then if I go to Jn 5:39-40 where the bible testifies on behalf of Jesus it would follow that Jesus is real but not to be found in scripture, and so is/must be born out of tradition, if I may use the word 'born' here, but is actually wrought out of the 'ark-builder/cave-hewer paradox commonly known as the law in function whereby we must stand convicted as sinner here now called by name (Gal.2:17-18 is on this but there maybe long after it worked for Joseph).

Bottom line here is that there is truth behind tradition, which, yes, was well known to the chief priests as they are presented in the Gosples who even warned Pilate that it is possible that they will have a greater imposter on hand if Jesus does not stay in the netherworld for 3 days or more (in Matthew of course because that was a common problem in those days).

My point then is that the bible may not be so wrong after all but was kind of written never to be read.

spin

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}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.
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Historical
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;bg=#D0E0FF}Literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of the man who started the religion. The record is problematical, but there is a man behind it.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Borg, Crossan & Jesus seminar
||
{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.
|
[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Unknown
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Robert M. Price
||
{c:bg=DeepSkyBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}Accreted
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Jesus was the product of various sources including a real person or real people.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}Transformed
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Fictional
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Authorial invention
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,solid,black}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. Flavian emperors constructed a new religion with the aid of Josephus in an effort to try to gain control over the Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Joe Atwill (1, 2)
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Mythological
|
Existed in supernatural world
|
Origin as a purely theological development, that later became reified.
|
Earl Doherty
[/T2]

spin

maryhelena

OK – I’ll go along with ‘Accreted’ for the position of Wells - albeit with a little reservation. The ‘growing together’ meaning part of ‘accreted’ might appear to put too much emphasis upon the ‘growing together’ - which, if I have understood Wells, the ‘fusing’ comes first - and it’s the fused ‘entity’ that then grows or accumulates. Probably just a nit-pick. Anyway, a better attempt at a definition of Wells than the ‘Anecdotal’ of Price’s chart.

As far as I’m aware, Wells only has the one real, flesh and blood, figure - his Galilean preacher - in his position on the ‘fused’ gospel Jesus.

spin

More tweaking and an attempt at covering the mythologizers.

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}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.
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Historical
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of the man who started the religion. The record is problematical, but there is a man behind it.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Borg, Crossan & Jesus seminar
||
{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.
|
[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Unknown
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Robert M. Price
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}"Accreted"
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;bg=#D0E0FF}Jesus was the product of various sources though he has as a basis a real person.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}Transformed
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;b-b=2,dashed,black}Fictional
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. Flavian emperors constructed a new religion with the aid of Josephus in an effort to try to gain control over the Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Joe Atwill (1, 2)
||
{c:bg=DeepSkyBlue;b-b=2,solid,black}Mythological composite
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,solid,black}Authorial invention
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,solid,black}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF;b-b=2,solid,black}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=DeepSkyBlue}Supernatural
|
Existed in supernatural world
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Origin as a purely theological development, Jesus performed his salvific act in the supernatural realm, but later became reified.
|
Earl Doherty
[/T2]

spin

spin

Would "astral" be a better term for Doherty? Any better ideas than "supernatural"?


spin

maryhelena

The base is not only a real person - the base is dualistic. It includes the cosmic/supernatural Jesus figure of Paul *plus* the real, flesh and blood, Galilean preacher of Wells. Fused together to create the gospel Jesus figure.

So, for Wells: The gospel Jesus was the product of two sources - real and spiritual. Fused together to create the mythological gospel Jesus figure.

In other words - first comes history (albeit Wells has no historical evidence for his Galilean preacher - but the argument still stands...). Then comes Paul and his vision re a spiritual Jesus figure - then comes the fusing of the spiritual Jesus vision with a real (or historical) figure - end result - a new creation - the gospel Jesus storyline.....

That, as far as I can see, is the position of George Wells.

maryhelena

If only, if only, Doherty had kept Paul's theological musings to a supernatural, spiritual, world - and had not got himself embroiled with creating his own sub-lunar sphere above the earth - a sub-lunar sphere that has no backing from the ancient literature on Middle Platonism - if only.....

As it stands neither 'astral' or 'supernatural' capture Doherty's position - his position is his creation of a sub-lunar realm above the earth. So, I don't see past this - sub-lunar above the earth - as a type into which his Jesus theory fits. It is the distinguishing mark of Doherty's theory.

Toto

I am not sure of the value of this exercise, but it seems to have been picked up by Thomas Verenna, who wants to differentiate himself from other mythicists, and James McGrath

spin

If you're referring to the construction of the table, it's supposed to be building a resource that would make it easy for new members to understand the distinct positions of the various stakeholders in Jesus analysis. At the same time it might help other members understand the complexity of positions that get lost in the reductive discussions that often take place here--the tide of idiotic HJ/MJ banalities that has washed over the forum with regularity.

While I have no problem with the distinctions being made by these guys, one of the things that I find interesting that emerges from the effort of constructing the table is the difference between the development of a mythology and the use of fragments of mythology to form a story.


spin