About your position in this table

[Ben C. Smith]

The O.P. was asking for people to place themselves on the grid,table, cell (whatever). That makes it a poll/survey.

Okay, I thought you meant that the table itself was the result of a poll. I see what you are saying now.

[DCHindley]

"Who do you agree with more, the Pope or Hitler?" Then he placed Hitler in the same table as mysticists.

Frankly, I started the thread because I consider the classification made by the table about the different views on Paul and Jesus (and their possible various intersections) to be highly exhaustive (also and especially to explain the differences between the mythicists). Therefore, I would have started the thread even if there was the name of Hitler (!) among the mythicists (even if obviously, the ''historical Jesus'' is so USEFUL to make REAL propaganda that the nazi invented deliberately one: the ''Aryan historical Jesus'').

Actually, Hitler (according to Shirer's Rise & Fall of the 3rd Reich) was a nominal Catholic. He even published the bans on a local Berlin newspaper before being married to his girlfriend by a priest. It was his henchmen who wanted Jesus Christ to be a mere symbol to be used by the reich propaganda minister H Goebbels. However, even that does not mean the henchmen denied Jesus' one-time existance as a man, but merely devalued it.

There are still today "liberals" (used in the sense of "progressives") who value the ethical aspects of the Christian gospel more than the existance of a real-live divine figure who performed a vicarious sacrifice for mankind. They are not phased by modern HC questions about what a real Jesus may have been like. The "social gospel" far outweighs the circumstances of its development.

DCH (break over)

[John T]

Frankly, I started the thread because I consider the classification made by the table about the different views on Paul and Jesus (and their possible various intersections) to be highly exhaustive (also and especially to explain the differences between the mythicists).

I said I would move on but you touched on something important.
The tables are not highly exhaustive because I can't personally put an "x" in any of the tables.

I would suggest you modify the Schilling format and remove all tables that affirm the historicity of Jesus/Paul and get straight to the point by stating the obvious: Most mythicists do not believe in the historicity of Jesus, which table do you think best explains your level of denial? Include: "none of the above"

Then do the same for the epistles of Paul.

Sincerely,

John T

[Bernard Muller]

A 4-2 for me: I take by "2. The Paul of the Acts is the solid base of the Paulina, but got expanded by patristic tradition." the expansion is about the pseudo-Paulines (Col., Eph., 2Th., 1&2 Tim. & Titus) and the interpolations in the genuine Paulines.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

The tables are not highly exhaustive because I can't personally put an "x" in any of the tables.

I don't understand the reason of this your impossibility. I think that the great utility of the table is that it captures all - but just all! - the possible options.

I would suggest you modify the Schilling format and remove all tables that affirm the historicity of Jesus/Paul and get straight to the point by stating the obvious: Most mythicists do not believe in the historicity of Jesus, which table do you think best explains your level of denial?

The table doesn't serve to represent the personal level of denial of a historical Jesus (given that the last row includes all and only the Jesus Mythicists). Its utility is to see how one can doubt, for example, the authenticity of all the epistles of Paul, and believe at the same time to the historicity of Jesus. Its utility is to see how various mythicists (or historicists) can interpret Paul as more or less interpolated and to which level and by who.

[Ulan]

3. The top of the chart says it is based on scholars views. Which scholars? Mel Gibson is a Biblical scholar? Surely no one considers the likes of Freke and Gandy as scholars.

I only addressed this specific point in the post you answered to. As far as I can see, the survey just matches known positions of public persons up with two lists of common scholars' views. I also don't see the principal problem that you see here. While you argue from a historicist position and probably have problems with the likes of Mel Gibson and the film everyone knows, including his comments, Freke and Gandy would be equally a problem for mythicists that don't like their book. If I remember correctly, even Robert Price's review wasn't exactly flattering. So, if it's a "push poll", in which direction is it actually pushing?

The positions however are clearly laid out and easy to find yourself in, at least as long as you are somehow decided. I'm mostly leaning towards 4-4, but it's not a strong position.

[spin]

Several years ago on the previous incarnation of this forum I put this table together to show the various positions people hold regarding Jesus.

Type of Jesus	Status of Jesus	Characteristics	Value of the gospels	Use of Myth	Published Proponents
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.	Basically historical material	Minimal, if any	Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
Historical	Existed in real world	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.	Historical data obscured by transmission problems	Some, causing source problems	Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, John P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
"Minimal"	A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed	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.	Little of historical value	Yes	G. A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
Spiritual realm	Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world	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.	Embody a complex myth & reflect belief distorted by reification	Full	Earl Doherty
Mythological composite	Did not exist: Authorial invention	Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).	Nothing but cobbled myths	Full	Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
Fictional	Did not exist: Authorial invention	Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. It was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.	A tool for deceiving & manipulating people	[-]	Joe Atwill (*)
Transformed	Did not exist: Based on confusion	Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.	Underlying history garbled beyond recognition	No	Francesco Carotta
"Evolved"	Did not exist: Result of accretion	There doesn't seem to be anything left once the creative narrative layers are removed.	Little to no value	[Possible]	Hermann Detering
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.	A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable	[Possible]	[-]
Jesus agnostic	Unknown	Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.	No current way of evaluating for veracity	[-]	Robert M. Price

I find myself in the lonely category "Traditional", unable to know if Jesus existed and without any hope of the evidence yielding clarification. The sources which are accumulated traditions seem to me to be terminally opaque.

[Giuseppe]

Several years ago on the previous incarnation of this forum I put this table together to show the various positions people hold regarding Jesus

I don't see so much difference about what Doherty and Detering say about the ''Value of the Gospels''. To my knowledge, the Doherty/Carrier paradigm may well require that (at least the first) Gospel was ''A tool for deceiving & manipulating people''.

[John T]

Spin provided an excellent chart.
Thank you for taking the time to dig it up.

I would also recommend Peter Kirby's work titled: "Historical Jesus Theories".

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Klaus Schilling's chart was too narrowly focused on an undefined concept called: "Christ of Faith".
Whatever that is.

Sincerely,

John T

[Stuart]

Spin,

As an acquaintance and off and on correspondent with Dr. Detering, I can say that Detering only subscribes to the characters in the NT writings being legendary fictions. He does not subscribe in the least box that says the writings were "A tool for deceiving & manipulating people." These came about from pious understandings and readings of legends, and did not come with mal intent. I think you need to make much clearer on your chart that those positions are Atwill's. Detering is very close to the position that when you strip away the literary legends there is no there left to even catch sight of the historical persons the literature fictionalized.

For me I say it's like the difference between Dracula and Harry Potter. Behind all the fiction of Vampires there was a real "Dracula" a prince who fought in brutal tribal fashion against the Ottomans. But he is invisible in the fictional literature about vampires. Harry Potter stories and the legends they refer to are 100% literary fiction, with no historical person drawn upon. This is pretty much my reasoning for agnosticism.

"Accreted" can apply to both fictional and historical. It is the process of legend built up upon foundation. But even if the foundation is legend, that would have no impact upon the process of layering additional legend. This element is not rejected by Price or Detering. I think what I am trying to say is the lines are not near as solid as you make them out in your chart, and many people pick elements of various categories. Individual elements within theories hold truth even if the grand theory in which they are lumped is not solid,