CX

Doherty is one of the most vocal and recognized proponents of the Mythicist position. He theorizes that no actual person underlies the stories recounted in the gospels. His website has the short version of his argument which is published in greater detail in his book.

I think you will find that opinions regarding the existence of an Historical Jesus run the gamut here. I, personally, am an HJ agnostic. My interest lies more in the text legacy that Xianity spawned than in the question of whether or not there was an Historical Jesus that founded it. I see nothing especially improbable about the existence of an HJ at the heart of the Xian story. Even so my basic feelingis that there is insufficient evidence either way to state emphatically one way or the other.

Not_Registered

Just to post my beliefs, I have never really thought in-depth about the actual existence of a historical Jesus. Not until recently, where have been posed with that question numerous times. I have done a little research to find any evidence that support Jesus' existence. I have found that there is not much beyond the bible and other biblical literature. I have seen sites that say the bible itself is enough evidence to prove that Jesus existed and I have seen sites that say the direct opposite, that because there is no evidence of Jesus' existence outside the bible he probably never existed. I have only searched a couple of sites and haven't truly delved into the topic yet (I eventually plan to). So, I was curious to see if there were any other details or knowledge on the subject that I missed. Also, I am not sure if the fact that there was not much evidence outside the bible means anything. Because, it could be that not many people at all back then had actual records of there existence. Also, I have seen much about the validity of the New Testament, with it having the most manuscripts and what not. And with manuscripts being written fairly soon after the originals (in respect to other literature). I didn't know if these details had any bearing toward proof of Jesus' existence, or what those details are saying in general.

Mageth

I believe Jesus exists as a literary character.

I don't believe that "Jesus the Son of God" existed as anything but a literary character, which makes sense because I lack belief in god(s).

I'm agnostic as to whether a Historical Jesus existed. It's not necessary for such a person to have existed to base the stories of Jesus on. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't.

Toto

There is no way to show that there was a historical Jesus, and while you cannot disprove his existence, it is rather doubtful.

The idea that a human Jesus can be extracted from the New Testament stories is a modern creation of the Enlightenment. The Christian Church existed for about 15 centuries based on the idea that Jesus was a supernatural being on earth; it was only after supernaturalism came into disrepute in the Enlightenment that modernists tried to find a real person behind the religious documents.

The history of this idea is traced in Charlotte Allen's The Human Christ, which I reviewed here (I just cleaned up the formatting so you can actually read it.)

Chris Weimer

What about the confirmation of the Sanskrit documents? Anybody have the new information on that? And what about the edict of Milan and the Great Commission, both have which been documented in the destruction of "heretical" and controversal manuscripts. It's like some guy, say Mr. John Miller, whose family maintains that their progenitor is a man named William Caldwell. Well, William Caldwell was a pretty popular name, and maybe some of the more legendary things aren't true, such as how Caldwell defeated the demons of France, but maybe it was instead a man diefied, much like how when Caesar died he became divus or divine. Sounds plausible to me.

CX

Ultimately the objection many people have to the existence of an HJ stems from a great deal more than simply the lack of extrabiblical corroboration. As someone who sits on the fence I would not be a bit surprised if Jesus existed but was completely unknown outside a small group. That being said there is the question of Paul's silence on the details of the HJ. Much of his language is also highly spiritualized and abstract. While I am not entirely convinced by this line of reasoning it's not completely out of the realm of possibility.

The gospel accounts are at least a generation or two later after a developed Christology could have already been in place. As far as the MSS evidence goes it is not nearly so convincing as apologists would have you believe. There are a number of discussions on this topic in the archives if you dig around.

Dean Anderson

It is more than a mere silence.

Whenever he does talk about Christ, he specifically talks about how his knowledge of Christ has been revealed to him by God through scripture. He never mentions any knowledge of Christ being passed to him by witnesses of any historical Jesus.

Also, when he admonishes or teaches the people he is writing epistles to, he quotes Old Testament characters and uses them as examples, rather than using quotes from Jesus and using him as a much more suitable example for the point he is making.

I would put my self in the 'Improbable Jesus' camp (i.e. I lean towards a Mythical Jesus rather than a Historical Jesus, but I am not sure).

I would love to see a good argument for a historical Jesus that answered the points that the mythicists raise - but all the ones I have seen so far (*cough*Strobel*cough) have been heavy on apologetics and poor on actual arguments.

FordMadoxBrown

In view of the paucity of evidence, I think the most important factor is people's motives for wanting to bekliev either that Jesus existed or did not exist.

Certainly I don't think the Bible is countable as evidence. Obviously the Bible says he existed; that doesn't prove anything. And the way people keep dragging in feeble sources such as Josephus shows how little evidence there is outside the Bible.

I think to a lot of early Christians it really didn't matter too much whether Jesus could be established as an actual historical figure. It means a lot to fundamentalists today, hence the lengthy arguments. But to a lot of early Christians I think he was more of a legendary hero. We can see this in the absence of any descriptions of Him; what he looked like, what sort of personality he had. Saint Paul never quotes him, even, and seems to see Him more as a Phenomenon.

Far more important to all these people, is the significance of his mission, the truths about life and death which are contained in the stories, whether they are history or legend.

My favourite comparison is 'Pride and Prejudice'. Here is a book which has influenced and enriched people' s lives for nearly two centuries with the profound truths about human nature which it conveys in the form of a story. Few of its admirers wouod be troubled if they were told that Lizzie Bennett and Mr D'Arcy never actually lived. But similarly, if some literary historian uncovered proof that it was a true story, that they really did exist and Austen recorded the actual facts, it wouldn't add anything to the legend.

One big problem is the vehement, purple-in-the-face resistance among literalist Christians to the words 'myth' and 'legend'. They think a myth means 'no more than a silly story'.

Toto

FordMadoxBrown: this is a very modern version of Christianity which is virually indistinguishable from Deism or maybe even secular humanism.

But many Christians attach theological significance to the idea that their God took the form of an actual human being who died in real history, and that this death is necessary for salvation. They object to the idea that this is a myth whether it is a good, enobling myth in the Joseph Campbell sense, or a silly myth in the Grimm's Fairy Tales sense.

Obviously, they can't prove the supernatural parts of this story. But they cling to the idea that there was a historical Jesus because otherwise there is no special authority in Christianity.

If you compare this issue to the existence of a historical Socrates - no one argues about whether Socrates existed or not, because it doesn't matter to anyone whether there was a historical Socrates behind Plato's literary creation. No one cares if there was a historical Buddha - Buddhists derive their religion from practice and personal experience. No one cares if there was a historical Confucius. From the historical perspective, there is no particular reason to care whether there was a historical Jesus - the rise of Christianity can be explained without the existence of Jesus or someone like him. Given the paucity of the evidence, agnosticism is the safe position.

Magdlyn

OT: Some fairy tales are Gnostic myths incognito. If I remember where I read this, I will let you know.

Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, the search of the animus for the "sleeping" or "disguised" much maligned anima. Christ/YHWH/Baal and the wandering abused prostitute Sophia (daughter Israel, Mary M, heroine of SofS). One of those perennial philosophy things.

Maybe it was in Starbird?