Malachi151

I propose that we iron out a range of views of Jesus such that we can properly evaluate where ideas about Jesus fall in relation to a scale. This won't be perfect, I know, but there is still a need for such a spectrum, flawed or not.

The Jesus Spectrum:

1) The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true. Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels come from divinely guided eyewitness accounts.

2) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus, who was a real prophet of God, but he wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate, but probably didn't rise from the dead. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.

3) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus, who was a rabble rouser in the region and had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God, but he was really just a wise rabbi who was politically volatile. He may or may not have been crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.

4) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus who was a rabble rouser in the region and had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God, but he was really just a wise rabbi who was politically volatile. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus.

5) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real a person or persons from a spectrum of time, perhaps from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus. Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.

6) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of an existing Jewish Jesus cult. There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that traditional scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether the writers themselves knew it or not.

7) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithra. The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into a combined story that borrows from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.

8) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and all of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

Now, if you would like to make suggestions or adjustments to this, please do.

Casper

What about the other axis; there was a historical persona as the basis from long before the first century CE but that person was neither jewish nor religious, and the supernatural attributes are older beliefs fgrafted onto the bibliography to create a religion?

I'm think of where things like Carotta's Caesar/Jesus falls in the spectrum (sorry I can't name other authors in this genre off the top of my head, no slight intended).

Malachi151

I was hoping that entry #5 covered that base?

mens_sana

Somewhere between 3 & 4 for me, perhaps a bit closer to 4 — with the understanding that "divinity" is buzz word meaning the same as "goddidit".

Zeichman

You lend waaaaay too much of the spectrum to views which are held by a negligible portion of scholars (i.e. 5-8). There's no room on there for BIG names such as N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Raymond Brown, John Meier, and Dale Allison. All of these scholars would fall between one and two, but have wildly divergent views. I know of no scholar who would be in #3 ("generally reliable" but may not have been executed by Pilate?! A contradiction, it seems!).

Also problematic is terminology of "generally reliable," which needs to be defined. Does it mean the gospel narrative? X% of the gospel sayings are in some way based on something Jesus said? (synoptic? canonical? Thomas inclusive?) If so, what is this percent, and why is it significant?

#2 takes two contrary stances to the resurrection, fyi.

Additionally, the theological statements behind each of these is problematic, as evidenced in mens_sana's post. One can find the gospels to be extremely reliable and not posit a divinity behind it.

Malachi151

Any suggestions on what changes to make, or how you would write them?

Zeichman

I think it depends on what the subject of your concern is: one's confessional beliefs, specific events in the life of Jesus, general accuracy of the gospels, specific sayings or events in Jesus' life, Jesus' personal eschatology, etc. If you're going for too many of those, you're going to complicate things a lot. The fewer the better. Let me know what you're trying to do and I'll do what I can to help.

jjramsey

Two issues: First, not everyone who believes Jesus was historical necessarily thinks that Jesus was thought to have been the Son of God, at least not in the orthodox Trinitarian sense. Second, not everyone who believes Jesus was historical necessarily thinks that Jesus was all that wise. Indeed, the possibility that Jesus was delusional is certainly a live one for those who think that Jesus was apocalyptic.

Johann_Kaspar

The reason behind the fact that this kind of discussion can go on and on for eternity is that there is simply no evidence (not even speaking about proof) for any case. Just a matter of opinion, prejudice, hypothesis, you call it.

Malachi151

Well, I'm just trying to put together a spectrum against which people's view of the historicity of the Jesus story can be "measured".

More work on the upper part would certainly be appreciated, and I know that its not really a perfect spectrum, but there are really branches, but for this purpose I'd like to keep it a straight line, of somewhere between 5 and 10 points, keeping in mind that every view doesn't have to be elucidated, just the main nodes, between which a "gradation" of views exists.