maryhelena

A 'supernatural' category does not include Doherty's position - unless you are prepared to grant that this category can include fleshly beings - something most unusual for the supernatural world. Beginners to this subject should not be led to believe that fleshly beings inhabit the supernatural world - which is what the chart is leading them to in regard to Doherty's position.
So - if your not finding the 'supernatural' category too wonderful - nothing stopping you from having a re-think re Doherty's inclusion in it....
Salvation is an interpretation of an act of crucifixion - or whatever other means of death/execution is undertaken. First things first...interpretations are two a penny! Point is, surely, that Jesus does not kill himself - others did that deed. "Salvific act" without referencing the means whereby this is possible is only half of the picture. Crucifixion is the common and garden model - why make things complicated for a beginner? After all, is it not the memorial to that deed that is hanging around the neck of so many pious believers....Indeed, Doherty has hamstrung his theory with his fleshly sub-lunar sphere above the earth - but why on earth is your chart appearing to give him a free ride?

spin

This has now left the rails and is not responding to me.

I'm not talking about crucifixion.

You're not really reacting to much of what I wrote above. I've already answered your question there. And if I'm giving him a "free ride", I'm doing the same for the others.


spin

maryhelena

But Doherty does talk about crucifixion at the hands of the demons.

And since the Wells and the HJ categories in the chart are referencing the position each takes re crucifixion - then to follow suit - Doherty's position on crucifixion is surely as relevant to the chart as the other positions...Seems an arbitrary decision to leave Doherty out of the loop - so to speak...

dogsgod

From my understanding Wells and Doherty's positions can co exist to a point. Doherty is viewing a dying and rising Christ from the epistle's standpoint and probably at the same time could agree with Wells that there is a Jesus figure behind some of Q that preached in Galilee but can't be shown to be linked with the epistle writers and their obsession with a risen Christ because Q doesn't go there, Q is of a different time and place. Wells differs with Doherty regarding the epistle's view on one main point and that is that Wells is open to a Jesus type figure existing possibly in a very distant past of Paul's, perhaps 100BCE.

I think the Jesus myth theory does allow for some material in the NT to be drawing from stories of real people but they weren't necessarily the founders of Christianity.

dogsgod

I think Doherty sees a preacher type figure behind some of Q, the third and latest of Mack's layers of Q, and places him in the 70's or 80's if I recall correctly, but I don't know what time frame Wells places a figure behind Q.

dogsgod

Maybe we're splitting hairs between the mythical theorists views, and perhaps that's a good thing when considering the so called historical Jesus advocates such as Crossan et al who are engaged in what is now often referred to as the third quest for an historical Jesus. What can they agree on other than the idea that Jesus is historical?

maryhelena

I take it from this that Wells has his Galilean preacher dated to the relevant gospel time frame.

Although Wells has used Q as a basis for his Jesus No.1 - his position could easily survive the downfall of Q. In other words, Wells views the gospel crucifixion story as being linked to Paul's spiritual Jesus Christ theology. He finds no way to link the Galilean preaching to Paul. So, even if Q gets sidelined his basic position stands - there are two different Jesus stories - Paul's Jesus and Galilee Jesus. Two separate Jesus stories that when fused together make up the new creation - the gospel crucified Jesus.

(Likewise - Doherty's spiritual 'crucifixion' theory can survive the jettisoning of his constructed fleshly sub-lunar sphere above the earth. Mythicism and historicity are not inherently antagonists...)

dogsgod

Yes, I think they are referred to as a Galilean Jesus movement as distinct from a Jerusalem Christ cult. I think Doherty suggested that the gospels have them joined at the hip, where the author of Mark wrote of a Galilean itinerant preacher entering Jerusalem.

mountainman

This is how Edward Gibbon distinguished the Galilaean cult:

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.
|
No
|
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=Wheat;b-b=2,dashed,black}Minimal
|
{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=#F8C868;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;bg=#D0E0FF}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}Yes
|
{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}Yes
|
{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