maryhelena

The problem is the chart - and its category of published proponents. Sure, 100%, the 'traditional' category does not need a published proponent to be meaningful. Then perhaps that's the solution - simply state under 'published proponents' that the category does not need such. Problem solved.....

As is, without some qualifier, the charts 'traditional' category is going to get some flak - as it has already done.

And of course, since the chart is a beginners chart - how are such going to learn re the 'traditional' category if there is no published proponents to refer them to? So that remains a problem for the inclusion of the 'traditional' category in the chart....

DCHindley

No need to go on the offensive, Spin. You should know by now that I like to exaggerate things to contrast views. I just thought it was interesting that none of these folks made it to your list. If your guide is supposed to be a guide for the beginner, it seems the beginners it is directed to are pretty much just the skeptics.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to allow your beginner to investigate the works of non-apologetic moderates, most of whom are believers. One of the reasons I suggested J P Meier is because he provides a lot of information about different points of view on any one topic before inevitably coming to a moderate conclusion.

As for your categories, I see a lot of problems with them. They don't distinguish between establishing facts about the historicity of Jesus and interpretations about their relevance to individuals or society.

Some Christian Conservatives, think Jesus MUST be historically confirmed (these are the ones who now want to "take back" biblical criticism from the liberals), others don't give a hoot whether Jesus is historically confirmed. Both accept the scriptures (variously interpreted) by faith, valuing it for purposes of individual salvation and group identity.

Some Christian Liberals (term used in the neutral sense) think they can confirm at least something of the historical Jesus, others don't feel this is necessary and are happy to live without Jesus' birth certificate in their hands. These value the scriptures for their contribution to society (ethics, inspiration, edification, etc).

There are also Agnostics. Usually, Christianity is the only religious tradition they have been exposed to, but aren't sure whether they buy into either the personal salvation or social gospel points of view. Some become sceptics and free-thinkers. They are not driven by what "scripture" says, at least not consciously (the western socialization process had imprinted a great deal of scripture into their brains, albeit in a scrambled and incoherent manner). They may find comfort in eastern religions and spiritism.

Then there are the hard core atheists. To many of these, at least in the west, Christianity has ruined their lives, either stifling their intellectual inspiration or sexual urges to the point they felt frustrated and angry. Scripture was slapped in their face to condemn them for thinking or doing what they felt was natural or right. Now they stew about it, planning night and day how to destroy what has harmed them so. Bwooo-haaa-ha-haaaa!

DCH

andrewcriddle

Meier was alive last year, has he recently died ?

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Oops!

I stand corrected ... must have been thinking of Father Raymond Brown. There was a time when a 13 hour business trip (including 7 hrs behind the wheel) earlier in the day wouldn't have phased me, but it does now.

DCH

spin

Could you try something like "I think Hermann Goering would make a good candidate as an advocate of the maximal Jesus."

I have over the last ten years tried to avoid reading most of the mainstream bestsellers (not easy, when everyone wants to cite the latest "Barbara Cartland" at you) because of the inextricable christian hegemonics they convey. I will read philology cum grano salis. [I've recently had to deal with the granddaddy of all recent apologetics, W.F. Albright, whose philology is inseparably laden with his own personal belief (and it's full of poor scholarly assumptions).]

I get the idea you tend to revel in this shit. You're a better person than I am. I find it all effete depravity.

The table is about approaches to Jesus and in particular his status as an entity. Maximal to me simply cashed out to "real" because the proponents don't have a sufficiently historical approach to the literature. The faith Jesuses aren't in the table, neither "Jesus is lord" nor "Jesus is crap". There is no coherent approach to Jesus in them at all.


spin

DCHindley

Actually, he wouldn't. Too enamored of Teutonic mythology.

OK, so you are trying to represent a range of positions about the historicity of Jesus? That's fine, although I'd recommend cutting down on the comments attributing motives to these folks. That tells me more about you than them. Still, it seems your real interest is in how secure these positions are. The relative weight of evidence one to the other.

Almost everything we "know" about any prospective HJ is from Christian sources, and even non Christian ones seem to echo the Christian story in a way that could have derived from Christians, not independent knowledge (oral or written accounts of traditions derived from direct Roman contact with Jesus, Jesus followers or Christians). The only one that might be independent is Pliny the Younger's account, and here there is only a Christ cult, not a historical person. However, it doesn't necessarily make everything they relate about a possible HJ wrong.

But the Mythical position can only point to some very general parallels to Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology, and cannot put together a good case from known historical/economic events that could have caused the Jesus myth why a MJ crystalized from that mythical soup when it did. Parallels don't mean shit without being able to identify the catalyst that made it form as it did. Mythers have earned an "F" grade there. At least the HJ advocates can do that, although they do not agree on what those historical factors were.

I like those authors because they are not trying to be apologetic for Christianity, although for some you can tell they prefer this or that position by the color of their language. I've learned to strip out the loaded language and stick to what facts they can tell me about the evidence.

On the other hand, Ben Witherington, N T Wright, L T Johnson, et al, are merely apologists trying to defend their traditional views using a twisted form of historical critical method.

DCH (gotta go and load a truck bed with stones, bricks and other impliments of landscaping destruction).

mountainman

I moved the "agnostic" positions (previously last) to the middle ground (where they appear to naturally belong between the opposing polarities in "historicity"), in order to highlight a spectrum of belief or a "Myth Spectrum". It may now be calibrated by the allocation of an estimated "historicity" value which descends through the first group from a "maximum historicity value" , into the ambivalent opinions about historicity (such as agnosticism and tradition), and into the core mythicist authors who are arguing for a very low if not "zero value historicity of Jesus", and in the case of the fictional category at the end, where the historical jesus did not exist at all, but was fabricated by means of imperially commissioned pious forgery, no value at all.

[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 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
|
{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
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{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, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher 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
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{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
|
{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
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{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
|
{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
|
{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. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was 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:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{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:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
[/T2]

Nice work spin. But where do early 20th century people like Remsburg and Arthur Drews fit in?

mountainman

Adding a column (2nd column) to reflect an estimate of the "historicity value as a percentage" for the "Historical Jesus". You may disagree with these values - they are only posted as an estimate ....

[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}HISTORICITY% of Jesus
|
{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
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}90% to 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
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}40% to 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, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}5% to 40%|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher 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
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{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
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A Spectrum from 100% to 0% to N/A
|
{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
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Zero% or N/A?
|
{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
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{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
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{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. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was 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:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{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:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
[/T2]

Where do early 20th century people like Remsburg and Arthur Drews fit in?

Ted Hoffman

Good work.

Ted Hoffman

Under historical, I would add EP Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koster, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond Brown, Mark Goodacre and J.P. Meier. Under accreted, I would add Robert Gundry
Under Jesus agnostic, I would add Bart D. Ehrman
Under maximal, add James Tabor.