Recently I have become acquainted with the concept of Possibilianism (and I think it best represents what I am now). But not only does it fit me epistemologically, but I think it fits my position on the figure of Jesus as well. Steven Carr has asked (I think, since at times it is difficult to get at his meaning) about my agnosticism, as if I am suggesting I sort of just sit on the fence about it. And that isn’t necessarily my position at all, as I do not just throw my hands up in the air and say, sighing, “Well, I guess my job is done now since I don’t have a specific definitive position on historicity.” But I was wont to explain it in more detail as I hadn’t quite had an opportunity to weigh out what exactly my position was. Thankfully, it seems Possibilianism has proven to be quite useful. I’d like then to propose a new term for your consideration and one I’d like to become accepted within the community, Jesus Possibilianism. Essentially, as it should be defined:
Jesus Possibilianism: (noun) The position that, while not accepting current trends in mythicism (or as I call it, Zeitgeist Mythicism) nor aligning oneself with the theistic epistemological positions on Jesus, refuses to take any hardline approach on historicity (that is, not accepting nor denying affirmitively historicity) while actively engaging in attempting to discover (through academic pursuits) the reality of the multiple positions on the figure of Jesus as they are today, were in the past (both distant and near), and will be in the future (through meme theory).
That is to say, while I doubt historicity, I still seek to determine the value of historicity and do not refuse the possibility, as I recognize the limitations of the evidence and the differences in interpretation which can be as valid (or more valid, in some instances) as those produced by those who call themselves mythicists.