Originally Posted by gstafleu

There is something that pops up in various threads from time to time: the fact that the "mainstream" refuses to give serious consideration to the Jesus Myth theory. That seems to be an accurate observation, and it allows appeals to (lack of) authority like "Well, how come no real authorities talk about this?" Here I want to give some thought on why this is the case. Just some musings, and I'd be very interested in any light that others can throw on the subject.

I'll move from what I think is fairly obvious to the less obvious. First, then, it seems clear that many (probably a majority) of scholars of Christianity are Christian believers themselves. I would posit that for a believer it is simply impossible to take the idea of a mythical Jesus seriously. The idea of a historical Jesus is so central to the world of the believer that any notions of a mythical Jesus are reflexively waved away as obviously insane. And, I would add, the believer is sincere in this: for him or her such a notion is indeed insane. (There are rare exceptions, Robert Price for example. But I would argue that he represents the exception, not the rule.)

That leaves us with the non-believers. Still a significant group I would say, even if, at least in the field, perhaps still a minority. The non-believers also seem hesitant. Why?

The first answer might be: practical considerations. If a non-believing researcher published his or her approving thoughts on the Jesus Myth theory, (some of) the believers would, to put it bluntly, scream bloody murder. This would at minimum result in quite a hassle for the researcher, and depending on the influence and ferocity of (some of) the believers, career damage should not be ruled out. So a decision by such a researcher to maybe let this cactus stand and look for something else to research is not unlikely.

Still I think that we are left with a final group of non-believers who are hesitant for other reasons, if only because the usual infighting of academia doesn't apply to them. For them I would posit a final reason: cultural inertia. Even non-believers have generally been brought up with the image of an historical Jesus, misrepresented as he may have been, as a cultural icon. Leaving behind a cultural icon is simply not easy. Add to that the fact that a mythical Jesus means not just that the culture of which we are part is guilty of, let us say, an over enthusiastic interpretation of a possibly charismatic teacher figure. Rather, it means that the whole culture fell for what essentially is a hoax, or at least a massive delusion. That thought too cannot be easy for a member of the culture, non-belief notwithstanding.

I think all these factors together may explain the curious hesitation we see over something that would otherwise, given the evidence, be accepted as the most likely explanation as a matter of course.

Gerard Stafleu

Originally Posted by Solo

Jesus origins in Myth appears obvious only to those who need to believe in something else than Jesus.

Originally Posted by No Robots

It seems to me that the motivation of many mythicists is to wipe Christ out of their memory. Many come from the most toxic of religious backgrounds. It is only normal that they would want to wipe out all trace of their bad experience. For those of us raised as mythicists, however, Christ is just another cultural artifact, at least at the outset. In my case, investigation of the phenomenology of that artifact has led to a surprisingly firm devotion to the man, Christ.

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Can you define "mainstream"?

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

If you stay within mainstream scholarship, there is a 99.99% acceptance among scholars that Jesus did exist. Go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.., and they all teach that Jesus did exist. The basic summary is that Jesus was just one of the dozens of people claiming to be messiahas and miracle workers at that time (see Life of Brian by Monty Python ). He preached for 1-3 years, and had managed to gain a small following of believers. Eventually he was executed over Passover by Roman authorities as a criminal. Early in his ministry, there was wide diversity of belief in interpretation of his teachings, but some of his followers, believed that shortly after his death god would come with all his glory and that the end of the world was near. Stories about Jesus circulated around mainly thru oral tradition at first, and eventually some of them came to be written down. [snip]

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The question of Mythical Jesus does not attract much attention because issue is fought “upstream.”

Originally Posted by dzim77

As far as I know, Biblical scholars/historians follow accepted critical practices. According to these practices, the evidence for an HJ is more than sufficient. Apparently you must use different standards (unaccepted ones) or "change the rules" in order to reject an HJ.

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Have Freke and Gandy etc caused resistance by popularising the ideas?

Originally Posted by Solo

Gerard, it's like this: if you were educated by the Jesuits, your world outlook will be likely be Catholic or violently anti-clerical (Luis Bunuel, anyone ?). If you were educated by the communists, you will be likely a bolshevik to the bone or viscerally opposed to all the phony, high-minded garbage they fed you.

I was born and was university educated in Prague, and left in 1968 at the age of 23. I am one of the "viscerally opposed" to communist gospel. They tried to convince me Jesus was a myth, along the same lines as you are. But hear me out on this: Jesus origins in Myth appears obvious only to those who need to believe in something else than Jesus. That is as obvious to me, as it is obvious to you that Christians reject the obverse idea out of hand without examining it.

Originally Posted by No Robots

It seems to me that the motivation of many mythicists is to wipe Christ out of their memory. Many come from the most toxic of religious backgrounds. It is only normal that they would want to wipe out all trace of their bad experience. For those of us raised as mythicists, however, Christ is just another cultural artifact, at least at the outset.