No Robots

I see problems with the new column, "Use of myth." There are certainly those in the maximal group who acknowledge that there is at least some mythologizing in the depiction of Christ in the NT. There seems to be a tendency in this discussion to understand "Maximal" as meaning that everything in the NT is accepted as literal truth. This is an unfair and inaccurate description of the scholars who hold that, for all its mythologizing, the NT nevertheless provides the basis for an adequate portrait of Christ the man. Also, it is inaccurate to say that the "Historical" group sees a minimal use of myth. On the contrary, these are the scholars who tend to say that the presence of mythologizing in the NT makes it virtually impossible to delineate an authentic portrait of the historical Christ.

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: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}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=#ffe4b0}Minimal
|
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}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=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black}Some, causing source problems
|
{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}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=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black}"Supernatural"
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black}Existed in supernatural world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black}Purely theological in origin, Jesus performed his salvific act not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as of this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black}Mythological composite
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,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:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{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}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black}Transformed
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,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,solid,black}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black}Francesco Carotta
||
{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]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.

spin

maryhelena

spin, I just don't get this - a reference to Wikipedia re 'salvific act' - an article which only mentions 'crucified' within the two prayers that are cited - both prayers referencing Pilate as being involved. This position is altogether contrary to Doherty's position.

What on earth is wrong with this wording for Doherty:

Purely theological in origin, Jesus was not crucified in this world, but in a fleshly sub-lunar sphere above the earth. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as of this world and reified.

If 'salvific act' is so important re your chart's classification - then be consistent and give the positions of all the other theories that are being reflected in the chart. It seems to me that 'salvific act' is an unnecessary topic by which to burden the chart.

andrewcriddle

IIUC Ehrman is not incoherent but using slighly odd terminology. He does not regard Josephus as a (pagan) Greek/Roman source and classes writers like Suetonius Pliny and Tacitus as post 1st century CE sources. Hence there are no pagan 1st century CE references to Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

buster

I accept your correction, Andrew. Ehrman does make the distinction between pagan and Jewish (for dramatic effect). My use of ellipses was misleading.

No Robots

Nice fix. Thanks.

dogsgod

Excellent chart spin.

Ted Hoffman

Sorry I havent followed the thread. "Supernatural" is misleading for Doherty. Try "Theological creation" "mythological figure" or whatever. Most definitely not supernatural.

Ted Hoffman

Actually, mythological figure is good. Its not far from Archaya's Mythological composite. That proximity should come out so I root for mythological figure.

gdeering

Hi Spin,

It seems that early on that “Fabricated / Mythological / Fictional - who the hell knows how it started” position has been parsed to death and we are left with very dubious explanations or motives that pigeonholes myth-ers.

With out death by a million shades, is there a way to add a category for those of us who feel that there is absolutely no need for an historical figure, but also no way to know how exactly the mythology developed or how the “need” for its creation might have originally been “evidenced” or expressed (like the Teacher of Wisdom, or plays/stories involving mythical sacrifice – the list goes on and on with out a direct link to Osiris.). I’d think that a position like this would be the most natural one for dispassionate researchers into another culture’s mythology.

Thanks,



Gregg