No Robots

^Absolutely.

avi

In my uneducated opinion, this chart, and the accompanying discussion, rank among the top three or four best threads of the past twelve months on our lovely forum.....

Thank you spin, well done!

avi

mountainman

This is certainly developing the beginner's guide to Historical Jesus positions but what about the alternative "mythicist" and "fictional" positions of those authors who have been "hounded out" of respectability, such as - for example - Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene, by Dr. R. W. Bernard (1964)? If this is indeed a beginner's table then it would service all discussions to also include the positions of authors down in the "Myth" and "Faction" category [b]in order to present a balanced spectrum of belief. Otherwise, the agenda is removed from the equipoise position, and unfairly represents the historicists. Suitable derogatory comments can be placed against these "myth" and fiction authors to service the hegemon of this board - but there is no reason (speak up if you can find one) that such authors would not be so catalogued.



The Historicity of Jesus as a sample Percentage between N/A or (zero and 100%)

I see the historicity column (sample above) as highly desirable in this table because at the end of the day, it is the assessment of the value of the historicity of Jesus - the judging of historicity - which is critical and by which a spectrum of positions can be numerically defined.



If it is to shake the cage, it will do so by the assessment of a "historicity value" according to Carrier's use and deployment of his Bayesian approach against HOW THE EVIDENCE IS USED by all the competing positions in this table (including the "myth" and fiction). It is precisely the "historicity estimate" that I expect Carrier to aim at, although I could be quite wrong about this.

In 2011 a "historicity column" will permit the indexation of the entire tabular presentation into a "spectrum", rather than an advertisement and who's-who of the "Historical Jesus Positions".

mountainman

But obviously there may be absolutely nothing at the core either.
The great leveller of all these infinite "core" options is historicity.
Historicity would not care what types of "cores" are hypothecized.

A "historicity estimate as a percentage" satisfies all types of theories.
Maximal HJers can argue in the paddock between 90 and 100%.
Minimal HJers can argue in the paddock between 40 and 89%.
Accreted HJers can argue between zero or 10 and 40%.
You may need more than the current 3 different HJ positions

Some MJers may prefer to argue a small historicity value? (IDK).
Other MJers and FJers (i.e. fictional jesus) have zero (no historicity)

EG:

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}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:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}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,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}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=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]Notes:
1. Degrees of affinity between the various Jesuses (as indicated by the divisions between them): Single: close; Dashed: further; Double: little; Solid: none
2. Quotes around the types of Jesus indicate labels needing improvement.

[hr=1]100[/hr]

rlogan

I do Like where Detering is. Pious fraud does not always have odious connotations. Certainly it eventually did in the way it came together as state religion.

The writer can believe in his message. Freeing men from the Law.

mountainman

So we are supposed to look the other way for implications?

One is never simple-minded enough about the condemnation of forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one must show no piety - and no pity.

- Arnaldo Momigliano.

But has Detering followed through and logically presented a historical narrative in which the letters of Paul (and perhaps other books of the NT canon) were "assembled somewhere in the second century"?

only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse.

-- AM

When was the message "packaged for the public"?
When was the Roman Empire freed from the Law?
When did the Revolution happen?

rlogan

I think this Journal of Higher Criticism article will do:


http://www.radikalkritik.de/FabricatedJHC.pdf

This is of course his thesis on the entire Pauline corpus being forged, initially in Marcionite circles and then co-opted/added to by the Catholic redactors.

Throwing Acts in there as a bridging document.

He brings in a lot of other apocrypha, historical markers, and then makes the case for Simon Magus being the prototype (but covert) "Paul".

I saw Spin did not have a link to Detering. But this is really long and well done, apart from the Simon Magus stuff which I am a little weak on.

mountainman

From another thread ...

Hey GDon,

Have a look at the most recent table displayed above and note the three different divisions of the mainstream "historical jesus" hypothesis and theories being classified as "Maximal", "Historical" and "Accreted". This is actually like a spectrum or sorts and it is all about the probability that Jesus was a real and historical figure on planet Earth in the 1st century, in accordance to the canonical books of the Greek NT.

Everyone one of these people listed against these HJ positions thinks that theirs if the "best explanation". The question asked of you relates to the measure of "historicity" that you would ascribe to the historical existence of jesus. It might be 100%. It might be 77%. It could be a 50%. I guess this must relate to the meanings of "Maximal", "Historical" and "Accreted", but the principle of the matter is that we have a spectrum from 100% downwards. Where do you see yourself? In the "Historical" section?

The MJ theories usually start with a figure of zero %.
That is, jesus was not part of Earth history in the 1st century, but was fabricated at a later date.

mountainman

Hey rlogan,

I have great respect for Detering's analysis, and have listed it on my collection of "Theories of Fiction" here for some time. Marcion is as good a candidate as ever (if we are to trust Eusebius) as we are going to find in the 2nd century, which is where we are looking for something to be happening (if we are to trust Eusebius).

Does Detering provide a name and a revised chronology for the Gnostic authors whose works today are multiplying out of the sands of Egypt codex after codex? Probably not. I have never seen or even heard of such a thing happening.

The positions on Jesus most often are derived from the texts of the books of the canonical NT, since historically speaking the positions of jesus as presented in the texts of the non canonical books were radically different and were seen as "heretical" and the "works of the devil" and were treated as seriously bad PR for Jesus. But we are just dealing in textual stories here, each of which must have had an author.

I'd say our suspect Marcion is the most likely to have fabricated Paul and who knows what else, but what I dont buy is why Eusebius didn't know this when he is assembling the known history of the transmission of the new testament from the age of Augustus to his own day.