Chili

You are correct in that a human figure is and remains a figment of the imagination and so is without an existence of being that can only be raised . . . or not.

Also in that Jesus was not a human figure and therefore was without sin but can only be raised as the last man to leave home like a captain on his ship since his disciples (eidolons or deckhands) are his wherewithal to be raised = as in the swine allegory.

Mankind proper is without sin as sin belongs to the human condition only wherefore then man is redeemable without sin and thus holy and pure.

Sin is an illusion without substance as is hate and darkness so that love and light can be life eternal in the beauty of truth where opposites are no longer (as also the sea is gone in Rev.21).

EarlDoherty

Nonsense. Have you (or Case) read Hebrews lately? The resurrection as part of its soteriological picture is non-existent. What about the Johannine epistles? Not a word about the resurrection. The same with the Didache. And of course, Q and Thomas. The Shepherd of Hermas, a lengthy part-soteriological treatise, is silent on the resurrection. The epistle of James says that “the message implanted in you” is what “brings salvation.” Most of the 2nd century apologists have no dying and rising Jesus. And nowhere in the entire epistolary record is any mention made of a resurrection on/to earth. Even in Paul, who is almost the only one to make a big deal out of the resurrection, there is no focus at all on Case’s “no relevance or power without it being believed to be on earth.” Scholars have long recognized (even from inside their box) that Jesus in the epistles is raised spiritually, to heaven, not to earth. (I'm sure you agree that 1 Cor. 15:5-8 is about visions, not physical appearances of Jesus, and 15:35-49 pointedly leaves out any rising of Jesus in flesh or on earth.)

Case, typically, was simply applying his own contemporary Christian mindset to the documents, the standard practice in traditional scholarship.

As for the rest of Case’s “case” against mythicism, why don’t you read about it in my website article “Alleged Refutations of Jesus Mythicism”? After all, it’s free of charge, Abe. No excuse for not checking it out. (The entire article might be very eye-opening about the case against mythicism which traditional scholars have managed to mount over the last century.)

DCHindley

Here is Albert Schweitzer's take on the Mythical approach of Strauss (Life of Jesus, German 8 editions 1835-1864):

[T]he critical study of the life of Jesus … falls, immediately, into two periods, that before Strauss and that after Strauss. The dominant interest in the first is the question of miracle. What terms are possible between a historical treatment and the acceptance of supernatural events? With the advent of Strauss this problem found a solution, viz., that these events have no rightful place in the history, but are simply mythical elements in the sources.

In regard to the application of the mythological explanation to Holy Scripture, Strauss points out that De Wette, Eichhorn, Gabler, and others of his predecessors had long ago freely applied it to the Old Testament, and that various attempts had been made to portray the life of Jesus in accordance with the critical assumptions upon which his undertaking was based. He mentions especially Usteri as one who had helped to prepare the way for him. The distinction between Strauss and those who had preceded him upon this path consists only in this, that prior to him the conception of myth was neither truly grasped nor consistently applied. Its application was confined to the account of Jesus coming into the world and of His departure from it, while the real kernel of the evangelical tradition—the sections from the Baptism to the Resurrection—was left outside the field of its application. Myth formed, to use Strauss's illustration, the lofty gateways at the entrance to, and at the exit from, the Gospel history; between these two lofty gateways lay the narrow and crooked streets of the naturalistic explanation. p78

Then, too, [says Schweitzer, describing Strauss’ position about myth] the offence of the word myth disappears for any one who has gained an insight into the essential character of religious myth. It is nothing else than the clothing in historic form of religious ideas, shaped by the unconsciously inventive power of legend, and embodied in a historic personality. Even on a priori grounds we are almost compelled to assume that the historic Jesus will meet us in the garb of old Testament Messianic ideas and primitive Christian expectations. … The main distinction between Strauss and his predecessors consisted in the fact that they asked themselves anxiously how much of the historical life of Jesus would remain as a foundation for religion if they dared to apply the conception of myth consistently … p79

The results so far considered do not represent the elements of the life of Jesus which Strauss was prepared to accept as historical. He sought to make the boundaries of the mythical embrace the widest possible area; and it is clear that he extended them too far.

For one thing, he overestimates the importance of the Old Testament motives in reference to the creative activity of the legend. He does not see that while in many cases he has shown clearly enough the source of the form of the narrative in question, this does not suffice to explain its origin. … Again, he sometimes rules out statements by assuming their impossibility on purely dialectical grounds, or by playing off the narratives one against another. p84

That, however, was only to be expected. Who ever discovered a true principle without pressing its application too far?

What really alarmed his contemporaries was not so much the comprehensive application of the mythical theory, as the general mining and sapping operations which they were obliged to see brought to bear upon the Gospels.

In section after section Strauss cross-examines the reports on every point, down to the minutest detail, and then pronounces in what proportion an alloy of myth enters into each of them.

He was opposing a dogma of critical theology, which, even at the present day, is wont to defend its dogmas with a tenacity beyond that of the Church itself. p85

From these suggestions one thing is evident, namely, that for Strauss the Messianic consciousness of Jesus was an historical fact, and is not to be referred, as has sometimes been supposed, to myth. To assert that Strauss dissolved the life of Jesus into myth is, in fact, an absurdity which, however often it may be repeated by people who have not read his book, or have read it only superficially, does not become any the less absurd by repetition. p95

All citations from The Quest of the Historical Jesus (ET 1910)

It looks to me that the father of systematic search for mythical elements in the Gospels pretty much restricted its application to supernatural elements that can not be rationally explained. While it appears that he did accept a historical Jesus, he made no attempt to put it in chronological order, seeing the individual pericopes independently of one another.

Who, exactly, developed a completely Mythical Jesus and when? Schweitzer attributes it to J M Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (1900). Robertson considered it a retelling of the Indian Krishna Myth.

DCH

ApostateAbe

I think that is a very good set of points, and you have convinced me that the resurrection was not the essential point so much as one of many necessary considerations of the Christian faith, since obviously you can’t believe in a Jesus who is killed and is contemporaneously living (albeit spiritually) if not for the resurrection. The Didache, for example, seems to adhere to the gospel of Matthew, and the gospel of Matthew places emphasis on adhering to the will of Jesus as the means to salvation, and presumably the belief in the resurrection was somewhat necessary but not the central point. Also, thank you for that link. I’ll be sure to read it.

Vorkosigan

Drews lists earlier mythicists in the intro to The Christ Myth. Apparently quite a number of people hit upon the insight.

mountainman

Would Ralph Waldo Emerson have been viewed as a "mythicist" for saying "We must get rid of that Christ!"? Where does Remsberg fit in with Drews? Momigliano reminds us that:

We sometimes forget that Eduard Meyer was, at least in Germany, the first non-theologian to write a scholarly history of the origins of Christianity, and this happened only in 1921.

mountainman

You should. Toto has answered every question you have raised here, even when you start repeating yourself.

EarlDoherty

In what way does the Didache "adhere to the gospel of Matthew"? Where is Matthew's passion story? Where is there any reference to the ministry of Jesus. I have a feeling you are relying entirely on the "Two Ways" section of moral behavior, which has a Jewish root independent of any association with Jesus. That "Two Ways" compendium is not attributed to Jesus. And if you will look at the very similar "Two Ways" section in the epistle of Barnabas, you will see that these moral rules are actually attributed to God.

This makes it much more likely that Matthew putting such things in Jesus' mouth is a secondary development (with some help from Q) with no dependence on him in the Didache (anyway, the "Two Ways" has obviously been spliced onto the original Didache, just as it has been onto the original epistle of Barnabas).

As for the very similar wording with passages in Matthew, scholars like Helmut Koester have long ago opined that this could be a case of 'assimilation' of texts, scribes being familiar with a well-known version of certain verses will consciously or unconsciously alter the wording of another text to conform with it.

Earl Doherty

mountainman

Does the Didache have any parallels to "The Shepherd of Hermas"?

Doug Shaver

Whatever its origin, if you endorse the argument, you can defend it.

I have no problem admitting that plenty of ahistoricist arguments are based nothing but naked hostility toward Christianity, but I don't use any of those arguments. Neither does Robert Price, who endorses ahistoricism while remaining probably the best atheist friend Christianity ever had.