spin

Here's is a (quick and dirty) elementary table showing four positions, presented as neutrally as possible:

[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=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.
|
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
|
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[/T2]

What extra information would be needed and what corrections should be made to make the table more accurate and at the same time maintain or improve the neutrality? Fixes of expression? Extra columns? Extra rows? More details? I'm sure proponents would like to clarify things. Short and snappy is the order of the day. As long as you try to maintain neutrality, feel free to make any constructive suggestions.

No neutrality challenged efforts, please.

[HR=1]100[/HR]

(Try reusing the table. Remember that each cell is separated by "|" and each row by "||". And if you want to add rows, note the color code with the first cell: "{c:bg=RoyalBlue}".)


spin

mountainman

The following data has been taken from
R.G. Price's Jesus Myth Spectrum



[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center}Status
|
{c:ah=center}Gospel Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center}Description of the Type
|
{c:ah=center}Published Proponents
|
{c:ah=center}#
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Son of God
|
The Historical Son of God
|
The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true
|
Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.
|
Fundamentalists et al
|
[1]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}An Historical Guru
|
An Historical Guru
|
The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus
|
An Historical Jesus had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.
|
Jesus seminar, and "Apologists"
|
[2]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Influential and Legendary Figure
|
Quasi-historical
|
The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus.
|
An historical Jesus was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.
|
Jesus seminar, and some mainstream academics
|
[3]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}A Minor Figure
|
Possibly historical
|
The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus.
|
Jesus is possibly historical. 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.
|
Jesus seminar (?), many mainstream academics
|
[4]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}Anecdotal Jesus
|
Mythical Jesus - A Collection of Anecdotes
|
The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real person or persons from a spectrum of time from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus.
|
Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.
|
Earl Doherty (?) and a few others
|
[5]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}*Completely* Fabricated
|
Fabricated Jesus - using Jewish cults
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults
|
There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not
|
R.G. Price
|
[6]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue}*Completely* Fabricated
|
Fabricated Jesus - using Pagan cults
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras.
|
The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.
|
Perhaps Acharya?
|
[7]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;ah=center}Imperial Pious Forgery
|
Fabricated Jesus - by imperial fraud
|
The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core
|
The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.
|
Francesco Carotta, Joe Atwill, You-Know-Who
|
[8]
[/T2]

From the same website ....

No Robots

spin's chart is more neutral than Price's, avoiding pejorative words for the "historical" position like "guru" and "apologists."

It might be worthwhile to subdivide the "historical" position into something like "minimalist" and "maximalist." The former holds that little or nothing is securely knowable about the historical Jesus. This group would include all the post-Bultmann historical criticism, including the Jesus Seminar. Maximalists, on the other hand, hold that we have in the documents an adequate presentation of the life, deeds and thought-realm of the central figure. This group would include primarily Jewish scholars like Klausner, Baeck and Brunner.

mountainman

I added those common terms to Price's presentation, the source data was cited. Those who are interested can compare the presentation, and will note that although there are eight separate divisions in the commentary, there are only seven summary positions listed on the diagram. So I took some small liberties in differentiating these two summary terms, perhaps with a little pejorative that Price or spin would use on the first pass.

Firstly, I used the term "Guru" to indicate that Jesus in this classification is to be regarded "historically" and as a type of Buddha, and I used it in a liberal and historical sense to indicate a certain homage. Secondly, although I used the term "apologists" very loosely, I am not sure that it is inappropriate, considering that many of the earliest Eusebian described christians were all apologists. However for the sake of 'neutrality; I would be prepared to hear arguments over what they might be replaced with.


See type #4.


The first four types (1 to 4) are all historical, and already allow for a range in the "historicity", especially positions 2, 3 and 4.

Spectrum of Belief and Disbelief

The summary for this presentation is that it presents a spectrum of belief and disbelief in the claims made, especially in the Gospels, with respect to the hypothesis for the existence of an historical Jesus. As I see it the mythicist position (# 5) is the first non-historicist position, but does not develop the theme of a fraudulent fabrication. I might understand some people claiming that the minimalist historical position (ie: #4) could also be regarded as a form of "mythicist/historicist" soup or mixture, but I did not label this option that way, and all the descriptive narratives are from Price.


The final three positions separate out three types of fraudulent fabrications.

spin

Here is a revised table using No Robots' comments (filtered through my understanding):

[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}Doctrinal
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}Existed in real world
|
{c:bg=#D0E0FF}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}Conservative scholarly biblical analyses
||
{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.
|
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[/T2]

(New additions highlighted.)

There are several people on this forum who hold views differing in degrees to ones already in the table. Anybody in that position want to makes constructive suggestions?


spin

Juststeve

Where has the suggestion of no robots been added? I think it a good one.

Steve

spin

The maximalist position is the doctrinal Jesus, ie the gospels are sufficient to support the existence of Jesus. But that's just my understanding. Feel free to expound your views on the matter and any other facet of the tabulation of stances regarding Jesus.


spin

No Robots

This is pretty good. I would quibble with some of the wording of the "Doctrinal" category. In the "Characteristics" section, I would specify that critical appraisal of individual passages accompanies the overall acceptance of the veracity of the documentary evidence. In the "Published Proponents" section, I would avoid the use of the word "traditional," because much of the more recent work in this area involves doctrinal positions that are at odds with traditionalism. In particular, with the scholars I mentioned earlier, we have to do with Liberal Judaism. Maybe one could just say "Scholarly biblical analyses that proceed from doctrine, whether traditional or non-traditional."

spin

So would I, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. I discounted "theological". All constructive suggestions....

I'd hoped that the context of "traditional" would make it clear, but I'm not that happy with it. I've inserted "conservative" for the moment as it is a conservative approach to the literature. But again, I'm not wedded to that. In fact, I've changed it again and listed a few names to get around the issue....

For me it isn't the religious position that is important, but the approach to the sources.

As I've given authors for the fictional position, perhaps we could have, say, Klausner and a respected christian scholarly analysis, umm, Schweitzer?

[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=RoyalBlue}{Doctrinal}
|
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, Schweitzer
||
{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[/T2]

Let's see if others can help.


spin

hjalti

By "traditional" are you refering to what Robert M. Price calls "Jesus agnosticism"? I.e. that we just can't know what the heck he was like if he even existed.

If not, then I would suggest adding that category.

How about N.T Wright as a "Doctrinal" proponent? He pretty much accepts everything. (and please don't put Schweitzer with him)

And I would opt for maximalist rather than doctrinal.