Solitary Man

If you're talking about Lao Zi, then Turton had you misled. Whether he existed or not is strongly doubted, but not entirely and by everyone, and there is no one as close to the old master as was Paul to Jesus' brother.

Toto

I was not talking about Lao Zi, but I might have mentioned Confucius. There are serious scholars who think that Confucianism is simply traditions handed down, and the character of Confucius was invented under the influence of Christian missionaries who assumed that if there was a religion, there was a founder.

Michael had an example from one of those 19th or 20th century political-religious new religions.

ETA - and, of course, when you turn the Brother of the Lord into Jesus' brother, you are just assuming what you are trying to prove.

Amaleq13

Just the ones you are clearly ignoring for your preferred conclusion.

Gamera

Toto, this is rather thin.

Let's stipulate that there are curious examples of fictitious characters entering historicity in the popular mind. Even so, this is nothing compared to the overwhelming number of examples of historical figures whose biographie attracts legendary, mythic material as if by magnetic force. It's almost fair to say that any well-know historical figure will likely attract legendary material. I mean it still happens modernly, with Lincoln and Washington and Bruce Lee.

My point is, that this seems to be a well-documented process that explains the obviously legendary material in the gospels. The mythicist position, however, has little support in the history of textual development. That alone is sufficient to dismiss it, short of some extraordinary evidence (like as the OP suggests, a mss that explicitly characterizes Jesus as mythic).

Gamera

I make no bones about it; the narrative isn't about Jesus' discussion of the law, the afterlife, etc. The teachings of Jesus (which I really don't think are that controversial as to their overall content) do not constitute the Jesus narrative, which can be easily summed up in a few minutes.

Set aside the teachings, and the gospel narratives we have reduce to a pretty simple storyline.

But who am I not to let you get bogged down in details that do not constitute the narrative.

Gamera

And serious scholars doubt the existence of Homer on similar grounds (a body of works that get unified by a presumed creator).

But I see a big difference here. If Confucius and Homer were mere reifications, the reification occured a millennia or so after the purported event.

Not so with Jesus, who at least within 200 years, and arguably much less, emerges as an historical figure in multiple texts. This seems to be an unlikely if unprecedented development. Whereas, the competing position, that Jesus was an historical figure whose biography attracted legendary material, fits well into this time line. The mythologization of historical figures can happen even while the person is still alive, and all the more so after a century or two, as numerous examples show.

Amaleq13

I agree that you should withdraw the specific claim that Jesus preached peace as part of your larger claim of non-ambiguity.

Yet that particular detail was one you introduced in your summary of what not not ambiguous. :huh:

You can simplify any story if you are allowed to ignore certain details.

Solitary Man

Most scholars still think that Confucius was real, more so than Homer. Heck, Farnell even thought that Hercules was real. This happens when you don't read the relevant literature, sadly enough, or develop a sound methodology, or are prejudiced by your hatred for some religion. Sad and pathetic.

As for the 20th century, perhaps you mean John Frum, whom someone else introduced, and who Turton read a single interview and declared him never to have existed, while all parallel examples conclusively show it to happen the other way around...unless you think Prince Philip never existed (hint, he's worshiped as a God in the Pacific).

And as for Brother of the Lord - no, it's quite simple. Paul calls Jesus kurios. Paul calls James adelfos tou kuriou. I'm just taking the text literal until someone shows that I shouldn't. There's no logical reason why we should read the text in any other way other than what it literally says.

And Jesus Mythers pretend to have evidence. Pfft.

Toto

I first read that modern scholars doubted the existence of Confucius from Charlotte Allen, a conservative Catholic. Are you saying that she is prejudiced by some hatred of religion? Who is sad and pathetic?

I am getting a little tired of your baseless claims that I am motivated by a hatred of religion. You don't know me, but you think you can read my mind.

I didn't bring Frum up and am not going to chase the reference down.

Paul refers to God as Kyrios. He refers to Jesus as Lord Jesus. How do you literally read "Brother of the Lord" in that case to refer to a brother of Jesus?

I think it is the historicist side that pretends to have evidence, and the mythicist side that generally points out the lack of evidence.

Solitary Man

Actions speak far louder than words. If Charlotte Allen, and I do not know who she is, as like a typical American conservative Catholic of the Bill Donahue type, than I wouldn't deny it. But it's not inaccurate to say that modern scholars do doubt the existence of Confucius, as there is even less evidence for his existence than Jesus'. Do all? Not from the recent scholarship I read. Confucius is still thought by the majority of scholars to have existed.

I didn't say you brought Frum up. I remember a certain somebody and Vorkosigan talking about John Frum. The name was mentioned and Vorky nearly had an aneurysm he was so happy. Unfortunately, it's poor scholarship at its worse, on par with the references and orgasms mountainman has when he finds "evidence" for his Constantine-Eusebius theory.

Do you know what kurios means?

If you don't have any evidence, then you have no theory. No theory does not equal myth. When you advocate a mythical Jesus, you're advocating a theory of your own, that Jesus started out as a myth. Which has more evidence for it? Which theory explains it the best?

Creationists bitch and moan all day long that evolution is evidenceless. But in reality, it has far more evidence for it. On a smaller scale, the same is with the Jesus Myth. Mythers bitch and moan about the lack of evidence, but their own theories literally have nothing going for them. Meanwhile, the historical Jesus explains the data better everytime.