maryhelena

Really? How would you define what a minimum ‘historical’ Jesus position is? The best that I can see is that a ‘historical’ Jesus position is a position that not only believes a human, flesh and blood, Jesus lies underneath, or behind, the gospel Jesus figure - but that this ‘historical’ figure was crucified. After all the mythology is removed ie the virgin birth, the miracles and the resurrection, what remains for the ‘historical’ Jesus position is a Galilean preacher who was crucified. This is not the position of Wells. He does not, as far as I can see, subscribe to such a ‘historical’ Jesus.

The Galilean preacher, in the theory of Wells, was not crucified - hence no exact equation between this figure, and the ‘historical’ figure assumed to be underneath the gospel Jesus figure. There is a very big difference between ‘a core preacher existed’ and the ‘historical’ Jesus position that it’s core ‘historical’ Jesus was crucified. Apples and oranges here. Unless your chart seeks to make this distinction it will be misleading.

spin

Wells follows the historical Jesus position, ie he comes after it in the chart. Although he accepts as historical that core, he is not represented as a supporter of the "historical Jesus", ie his name isn't included with the entry for the "historical Jesus". He is clearly separated from it and hopefully the thick dashed line separates him more from the preceding pair. (And how far do you think Ehrman goes when he is counted in the "historical Jesus" camp??)


spin

maryhelena

Wells accepts a historical core to the gospel story - he does not accept that this historical core is the 'historical' crucified Jesus that the HJ position upholds.

Without making some acknowledgement of this differentiation your entry for Wells will remain confusing to those who might be new to the HJ/MJ debate.

As for Ehrman - don't know - but if he accepts a crucified 'historical' Jesus - then he is within the mainstream HJ camp.

That's the differentiation mark between Wells and HJ advocates - no crucifixion for his Galilean preacher....

spin

Who said he did? There's no crucifixion in "Q", which he seems to think basically kosher.

He's not indicated as a supporter of HJ.

Just for some reason that there was a guy. He's now part-time historical.


spin

maryhelena

Your chart is supposed to be a 'beginner's guide' to Jesus positions. Q is hardly of interest to beginners - hence qualifying the chart's use of Q, in regard to the position of Wells, could help with clarification re his position verse the HJ position.
Perhaps not technically - but it's a beginners chart and needs more clarity....
Now, now, spin - don't let your aim of neutrality get lost...:devil1:

squiz

Tom Verenna and James McGrath have some blog articles that seem to be relevant to this discussion.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2010...gure-of-jesus/
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...mythicism.html

Maybe someone should point them to this table.

buster

Regarding Bart Ehrman...

Jesus, Interrupted (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 148.
He views the gospels as historical accounts with a theological crust, and he considers the "bare facts" of the crucifixion and so forth to be confirmed by non-Christian sources.

IOW he accepts the testimony of Pliny, Tacitus, and part of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Ibid., p. 150.
He holds pretty strongly to the mainstream view.

But, as usual, he's incoherent:

Ibid., p. 148.

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=#80C0C0}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=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black}Historical
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;bg=#D0E0FF}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:b-b=2,dashed,black}Borg, Crossan & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black}"Accreted"
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black}A core preacher existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;bg=#D0E0FF}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:b-b=3,double,black}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=#B05070;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=#B05070;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=#B05070;b-b=3,double,black}Mythological composite
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=3,double,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:b-b=3,double,black}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=2,solid,black}Supernatural
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Existed in supernatural world
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Origin as a purely theological development, Jesus performed his salvific act in the supernatural realm, but later became reified.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Earl Doherty
||
{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}Jesus agnostic
|
Unknown
|
Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
Robert M. Price
[/T2]

spin

maryhelena

OK - that makes things much clearer re Wells and the HJ advocates...

So now - back to Doherty.

'Supernatural' if far too open-ended a category for Doherty. Doherty needs to be placed in his own specific category - his fleshly sub-lunar sphere above the earth. Anything other than that and the chart is misleading for his position.

For beginners - 'salvific act' is also unnecessarily complex. Crucifixion is the common term to designate the means whereby the redemption process occurs.

Doherty places the crucifixion within his fleshly sub-lunar sphere above the earth. I can't see how your chart can reference Doherty without clearly stating his position.

spin

Umm, if you'd noticed he is in his own specific category. You may like to complain about the title, but I've already intimated that it wasn't wonderful.

Crucifixion is the English term for an ancient form of execution. It may be symbolic of salvation, but it certainly doesn't indicate what "salvific act" does. (The means is not the act: he could have been boiled in oil or flayed alive--it doesn't matter.)

He's not helping himself with such conundrums, so it won't communicate. It is sufficient that the idea that Jesus didn't participate in this mundane world, but performed his salvific act in some supernatural sphere of existence. That which separates Doherty from those above him in the table is that although his Jesus functionally didn't exist, he provides a transparent way to understand how Jesus came to be; there is a clear and credible trajectory, which involves believers as participants from the beginning of the development. It needs to conspiracy, no author, no fraudster.


spin