PhilosopherJay

It seems to me that the debate between the historical and mythological Jesus is wrongly categorized. The binary nature tends to lead to a synthetic middle position of a legendary Jesus, where both sides are a little right and a little wrong. This, however, tends to keep us within a dominant Historical Jesus paradigm.

The Historical Jesus position is actually two positions. It is the position A) that the gospels are accurate witnesses to the life and death of an historical Jesus B) that the gospels are legendary retellings of embellished deeds surrounding an historical Jesus at their core.

In fact, the first position only should be called the Historical Jesus position. The second position should be called the Legendary Jesus position.

The third position is that all stories about Jesus are allegorical and derived from Greek and Hebrew mythological texts. This is the Mythological Jesus position.

I would argue that the Legendary Jesus position was the standard position of most people, including Christians, until the Fourth century when Eusebius put forward the Historical Jesus position. Most people of the first centuries were under the influence of Euhemerism and believed that all mythology was legendary.

By mixing the Historical Jesus and the Legendary Jesus positions into a single Historical Jesus position, we obscure the significant differences between the Historical and Legendary Jesus positions.

Most currrently, so-called, Historical Jesus scholars are actually upholding the Legendary Jesus position. In order to isolate those fundamentalists who actually believe in the miracles of Jesus as historical facts, only a tiny minority of scholars, we should categorize the debate as a "Legendary Jesus Vs. Mythological Jesus" debate. Those who continue to talk of an "Historical Jesus Vs. Mythological Jesus" debate obscure the real differences and allow the Historical Jesus folk to seem more a part of the debate than they are.

So my suggestion is that we no longer refer to an "Historical Jesus Vs. Mythological Jesus" debate, but in the interests of clarity of terms and thought, we refer to a "Legendary Jesus vs. Mythological Jesus" debate.

Thoughts?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder, Jay, if you'd be kind enough to tell us who it is among biblical scholars who, according to you, are now, or who have been, advocates of position A?

Can you name the EC fathers before Eusebius who subscribed to this "legendary" position and tell us where it is within their works that we may find them propounding it?

Can you supply some evidence for this claim, please? Can you show us where any of the known mythographers of "the first centuries" -- i.e., Plutrach, Ps. Apollodorus, Ovid -- show themsleves to be Euhemerists and/or state that all mythology was "legendary" in the sense with which you define this term?

Could you tell us please who in particular among the current crop of "HJ scholars" you see as "upholders" of the "legendary Jesus position?

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

I think that people held a variety of views on this, like we do today. In my own very personal opinion, one major difference is that many people back then seemed to believe in daemons, which lived in the air around them and also around sacred sites. Some were thought to be intermediaries between men and the true gods. Others were thought to be spirits which could be manipulated for good and for ill. For Christians, they pretended to be gods, giving rise to absurd beliefs and lurid tales among the pagans.

This passage from Tatian's Address to the Greeks gives us an idea of how mythology was viewed back then (my bolding):

From Peter Kirby's wonderful website (now back on line!):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athene, as they say, took the form of Deiphobus for the sake of Hector, and the unshorn Phoebus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiae lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame.

Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales.

If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal.

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory. If you attempt to do this, the divine nature as held by you is overthrown by your own selves; for, if the demons with you are such as they are said to be, they are worthless as to character; or, if regarded as symbols of the powers of nature, they are not what they are called. But I cannot be persuaded to pay religious homage to the natural elements, nor can I undertake to persuade my neighbour. And Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed.

It would lead to confusion, I'm afraid. For example, how would we show that the Legendary Jesus actually existed? What would it even mean?

rlogan

I've found it so odd that "Historical Jesus" adherents are so frothing-at-the-mouth over the full myth position when the majority of things of any consequence are conceded readily as myth to begin with.

After you have conceded most of what the bible fronts as the very evidence of why we ought take any note of him to begin with - all the miracles, prophecy fulfillment, threatening the superstructure of the Jewish Temple, etc -

There isn't much of anything left at all. A man lived once upon a time.

The strategy is to remove anything embarassing to the theory of a historical person.


Think about this from a statistician's view: We have evidence. We remove all the evidence inconsistent with our belief. Then we pretend the belief looks pretty good stacked up against the evidence that is left.

What you are really doing is using the hypothesis to screen what data you will accept.

mountainman

Dear Philosopher Jay,

In earlier threads spin introduced "The Traditional Jesus" as an alternative form of terminology to explore. From memory, discussions related to Ebon and the Ebionites as exemplars to this classification of terminology. How does your "Legendary Jesus" differentiate itself from, and/or integrate itself to this earlier mentioned "Traditional Jesus". Actually, now that I recall this discussion, the "Historical Jesus" was still retained somewhere in the options. So I appear to have answered my own question(s). Which leave the question of ...... What do we do with the notion the "Historical Jesus" under this new arrangment (Legend vs Myth), and does this imply that those who might wish to see themselves as "new testament archaeologists" no longer have any ground for study?


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

So, who are these people that propagated the Legendary Jesus?

Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was born of a vigin. Marcion, according to Justin, claimed Jesus was only divine, without flesh at all, and Tertullian claimed Jesus was divine only his flesh was in question.

What did Ignatius, Clement, Tatian or Irenaeus propagate? I think they all propagated that Jesus was divine, the literal son of a God, born of a virgin.

And, if one examines Tatian's Address to the Greeks, it would be noticed that he ridiculed those who tried to put allegoric meanings to the gods instead of literal.

Tatian's Address to the Greeks But, when one reads Justin Martyr, it would be realised there is really only one Jesus since Justin declared that he proposed nothing new, and Trypho confirmed that when he declared to Justin that his virgin-born Jesus is similar to the MYTHS of the Greeks.

dog-on

Pope Benedict.

Doug Shaver

I'm afraid the utility of your suggestion eludes me. No one but inerrantists thinks the gospels are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Jesus. For everyone else, the question is simply how much of the gospels are historical fact. The debate is between those who think the correct answer is "none" and those those think the correct answer is anything else. The latter are usually called historicists -- and usefully so, I think. The former are usually called mythicists. I would prefer ahistoricists, but in many contexts it's an uneuphonious appellation.

gstafleu

I think the concept of the "Legendary Jesus" (LJ) is indeed a useful one. But given what rlogan already pointed out and Jeffrey implied (I think), to wit that just about everybody already thinks that most of what we read in the gospels is "fiction," or at least not history as we understand it, the question is: what realistic difference is there between LJ and MJ?

Is there any place in any of the gospels of which a reasonable amount of scholars would say: this is accurate history? And I don't mean that there is a crucifixion scene in Mark and the scholar thinks that Jesus was in fact crucified. I mean that the scene as presented, with all the details, is indeed historic. I doubt if there are (m)any such passages, but I'm interested to know. Jeffrey...?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Isn't that an argument to adverse consequences? Obviously if somebody wants to say that such-and-such a part of the LJ scenario is in fact historic, than the ball would be in that person's court when it comes to justifying that position. And the person in question may well be confused by having to do so--but that is not necessarily a bad thing :devil1:.

Gerard Stafleu