spin

I'd say there is a lot of overlap, but they aren't the same as I understand. Developing tradition can be sufficient to explain the existence of the trope of the personalized savior, though there is no way given the evidence to decide on the matter.

Let's give it a try....

[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=DeepSkyBlue}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.
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}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}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Unknown
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Unknown[/T2]

spin

No Robots

I agree with hjalti that it is a bit incongruous to place Wright in the company of people like Schweitzer and Klausner. Perhaps we need another category: "Literal." You know, every word the Divine Truth, dictated by God himself.

No Robots

If you want a Christian for the "Maximal" category, you might want to consider Birger Gerhardsson.

spin

Can you see for our purposes a meaningful distinction as to how the status of Jesus is known? I can't at the moment, though I take it the difference regards the approach to dealing with sources. I understand the difference between the "maximal Jesus" approach and that of the "historical Jesus" revolves around historical methodology or, as one side might see, the lack of it.


spin

No Robots

From my point of view, the difference is between those who understand the NT as Jewish literature, and those who do not. On this basis, I would not even place Schweitzer in the category "maximal," but in "historical." Gerhardsson is the only Christian I can think of who has made a serious effort to treat the NT as Jewish literature, and that is why I would place him in the category "maximal."

maryhelena

spin, where does G.A Wells fit into all of this? My own views do tread a somewhat similar path to Wells (ie historical figures have been used to colour, to create the mythological Jesus figure - a composite or fused Jesus figure - while Wells has a real Q figure). The chart by mountainman has an Anecdotal Jesus category which might cover the position of Wells (and myself) - but I'm not sure about your Traditional category being sufficiently able to accommodate my position - dealing as it does with historical figures. Wells might fit in your Traditional category as no historical evidence for his Q preacher. (ie real but not historical......)However, to place my position within your Traditional category - or any position that looks to historical figures as being inspirational to the creation of the Jesus mythology - is surely to shortchange that position...

Toto

I see some problems with this. Rows 2, 3, and 4 are varieties of the historical Jesus, who is assumed to have been human with some admirable characteristics, and who started the Christian religion. I think that most academic Jesus scholars would agree that he was legendary, but also a minor figure in the Roman Empire. But there are many more varieties of historical Jesus than just 3.

spin

As people like to know how such things work, I can postulate how the material got into tradition, Paul may have, in his musings on how one can escape the curse of the law, had an inspiration regarding a savior who could take the curse for you, but this can only be a theory: tradition doesn't easily yield up its actual sources. It happily passes along anything it receives, leaving its current state up to the latest teller of the narrative.

I don't understand the mechanism as to how Wells can know what he does, ie that there were two separate sources behind Jesus. If it is just a case of him giving an explanation for those who require them (no matter the value), then he may possibly fit into the traditional catergory. So, where do we stand?


spin

mountainman

As I read Price, the first 4 are all theories that postulate a historical jesus, and the types are loosely coupled with the interpretation of the manuscript and literary evidence - ie: the tetrarchy of canonical Gospels - whether these are historical eyewitness accounts, or historical based legends, or a mixture.

We might even add a "historicity percentage" (which may be altered - I have just plucked some figures out of the air) to indicate the historical probability of the HJ as espoused (or postulated) by each of the theories (rows).

[1] The Gospels come from eye witness accounts [Historicity = 100%]

[2] The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend. [Historicity = 80%]

[3] The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with more than a little legend. [Historicity = 40%]

[4] The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about. [Historicity = 10%]


The main idea is that there is a spectrum of belief in the HJ that diminishes towards zero row by row.

[5], [6], [7] and [8] are non historical Jesus theories where the HJ was not historical. i.e. He did not exist on Earth. He was textually assembled by one means or another, mystical mythical inspiration or common pious fraud. The Percentage Historicity for these theories are = 0% (ZERO).

maryhelena

spin, it does not matter, for the sake of your chart, how Wells came to his position re Jesus. He is a published author on the subject - of many years standing. Yes, he may ‘possibly’ fit into your traditional/category - but that seems to me to be short-sighted. Sure, he has no historical evidence for his Q figure. Therefore falls with that categories ‘true’ and ‘non-true’ elements. However, it is the position of Wells that there is a historical basis to the gospel storyline - albeit one that he has not established. Thus, your Traditional category is not an adequate reflection of his overall position. The Anecdotal category of mountainman’s chart (from Price) is a much better fit for Wells - and my own position as well.

I do think your chart needs to reflect the efforts of Wells. It’s not simply a case of historicity verse non-historicity. Wells indicates a fusion of historicity and non-historicity - also my position. Historicity not of a historical Jesus but historicity as it relates to actual historical events and figures.

mountainman has put Doherty within the Anecdotal category - albeit with a question mark. Your chart put him into the Mythological category....