guy_683930

I have thought of a novel compromise to the HJ/MJ question. I don't think many (if any) fundamentalists (on either side) would go for it, but tell me what you think. Since it refers to Christ as "the all" (ta panta)

Colossians 3.11 (RSV):
"Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth'ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all."

Although in the RSV it does not translate this, the last part could be translated "...,but Christ is the all, and in all." because the word that is translated as "all" (panta) is preceded by the article "the" (ta).

Also, in the Gospel of Thomas, a similar statement is said:

Gospel of Thomas v. 77 (Lambdin translation):
"Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.""

Then wouldn't Christ be BOTH the presence and the absence of a historical individual who lived in the first century CE? It is based on the idea that in order for "the all" to be the actual all, it would be "the set of all sets" paradox, and would have to be both itself and not-itself, i.e. it is "explosive".

Tell me what you think of this idea, one way or another, if you think it is a valid compromise that some of both sides could agree on, or maybe why neither side would like it.

Chris Porter

This belongs in Biblical Criticism and History, where I will place it so it gets some response.

Clivedurdle

Shroedinger's Jesus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

hallq

Mmmm... this may attract liberal theologians, but not hard-nosed rationalists.

There are really only three options, a totally historical Jesus, a historical figure whose life was much embellished, and a totally mythical Jesus. I suupse there's also the idea that a mythical figure was merged with a historical one. That's about it.

mikem

None of which are Doherty's Jesus interestingly. You would have to add to your list "a heavenly being to whom a human genealogy and history was appended." Unless that is what you meant by "mythical"? But to most people, "mythical" is synonymous with "entirely fictional".

Jack the Bodiless

How about "two or more historical persons who called themselves Jesus"?

It would certainly explain the resurrection (only one of them got crucified). Several other miracles are also explicable with members of "Team Jesus" working behind the scenes to pull them off...

Doug Shaver

In what sense does Doherty, as you understand him, think Jesus was not entirely fictional?

Toto

Are you trying to distinguish "fictional" - meaning an outright lie told by religious charlatans - from "mythical" - meaning a tale that is not literally true told by religious people you don't want to call charlatans?

That's the only way I can make sense of what you are saying.

guy_683930

Personally, I lean towards a totally mythical Jesus (as far as the early church's focus was on), though the early church would not have seen as mythical but located in the spiritual plane in the heavens, but I could see it as a possibility that there was a historical individual perhaps named Jesus, or a bunch of historical individuals, some of whom were perhaps named Jesus, which the gospels used to fill in the details about Jesus. Or another possibility is that there was an individual in the early church possibly named Jesus who had visions of the risen Christ like Paul did and started calling himself Christ, and that was who the stories were based upon, or a group of people who had visions of the risen Christ and did parts of the stories that were attributed to Jesus in the gospels, and those parts were compiled by different people into the stories of Jesus in the gospels. Or perhaps another possibility entirely that I haven't considered.

The thing about a compromise, however, is that it usually does not completely satisfy one side or another. So, for monistic mythicists (like myself), referring to Christ as "the all" is acceptable since whatever it is, it is "the all". Even if there were a supernatural Jesus who historically existed, Christ would still be "the all". Some liberal theologians I could see going along with it, of course some conservative theologians would say I would be espousing "heretical" ideas which could be used to support the "heresy" of pantheism/monism (that it is derived in part from one of Paul's letters, which conservative theologians would consider infallible, is another question entirely). So, hard-core mythicists and hard-core historicists may not go for this, but for open-minded mythicists and open-minded historicists, it could at least be a way to not get too one-sided in thinking.