Chris Weimer

This is quite false. There's plenty of evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus. I already listed the main ones. Go on and ye defeat that.

So what's the evidence for a composite character?

Chris Weimer

How early are these references?

How do you explain the Twelve in Paul? Why do you ignore the 12 in traditional Jewish literature about the sons of Israel?

And where are all these "different things"?

Clivedurdle

I noted on the Doherty thread that a Bible commentary that explicitly looked at the mythological aspects of the Bible would be very valuable. I think we might be going around in circles because that has not been done.

It does all feel like a Jewish rewrite of the beliefs about the four elements, various mythological archetypes, all wrapped up in a lovely bit of alchemy about turning wine into blood and bread into flesh.

A modern Golden Bough is badly needed without the bits he might have made up!

judge

The connection between the twelve sons and the twelve houses of the Zodiac has been addressed, by scholars. I can get the references if you like.

judge

Even Clement of alexandria noted these things in

Stromata book 5

mikem

Many years ago I read a book called "Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell. He showed by reference to diverse characters, including figures known to be historical,how their lives could be seen as fitting a pattern. I cannot recall in detail now, but I do remember items like "calling", "challenge" and "return". This pattern was a universal one. It would be ridiculous to suggest that they are all borrowings, especially where historical people are concerned, but what it does show is the humn propensity to find pattern and meaning, to make "stories" out of lives if you will.

So the fact that there are similarities between Jesus and other figures does not demonstrate that Jesus is mythical, or event that the gospellers are borrowing particularly. What it shows is that they were conforming to a natural human propensity.

I would argue that a strong case can be made for the historicity of Jesus, beginning with the parables. Even allowing for editing of some by the tradition, taken over all, they present an overwhelming impression of a mind, observant, astute and humourous, and possessed of intelligence and humaneness. I can think of nothing to compare with them from other religious traditions.

beyondtimeandspace

I often find it quite comical when I watch a new movie, or play a new video game. I usually enjoy such things despite the fact that they more often than not tell the same basic story. Sure there are normally unique twists and turns, mysteries and deceptions, graphics and musics, what have you, but when you strip all the frills and thrills away, you're left with the same basic model.

I've often read parallels that people make between the Jesus story and other ancient tales. It's usually the case that such parallels are overstated. Quite often, the parallels are so basic that you really have to work to show the relations.

It's never as if someone simply sits down, after having read the Bible two years ago, and while reading parts of some ancient story says "oh my gosh! it's the Jesus story!" I mean, after all, if the stories are SO similar, as many people like to suggest, it should be that obvious. But the plain fact is that it's not. It's only after hours upon hours of research, and literal line-by-line readings (not to mention being quite familiar with at least one source text) that such parallels are found.

Yet, on the other had, we do know that, at least in more ancient times (ie, 2000BC - 0BC) much religious and myth-mingling took place, particularly in the Near East (Mesopotamia and the Levant). There ARE obvious correlations between myths of differing cultures in that area, who lived around the same time periods, and who's political landscapes were constantly shifting, creating many cultural overlaps. So should we really find it so surprising to see the same kind of thing take place as the Bible ancestral tribes of the Israelites moved from Mesopotamia, into the Levant and Egypt? Perhaps it doesn't seem so far-fetched.

However, at the same time, we also have to recognize that history meant something quite different to the peoples of the time, and there is even disagreement between modern-day ancient timelines and timelines offered by ancient Greek historians. First of all, there is great debate about WHAT should be held in historical context, and second, there is even debate about WHEN such items should be considered as having taken place.

So the whole question seems really to be up in the air right now. What seems someone odd is the idea of the context that the whole year 0 era should be placed with regard to the Jesus story. By this I mean that as far as we know, ancient Egypt was older than 3000BC, and that its myths and legends developed from at least between 3000 and 1000 BC. The ancient Horus myth seems to have been around approximately 2000 years before the Jesus story. Yet, the whole Jesus story is set entirely within the context of its contemporary circumstances (ie, Roman occupation of Israel, and the general state of affairs of the world at the time).

So one has to ask the question, were all of these myths and legends common knowledge at the time (having already been 2000 years old), or were they tales privy to the scholars and educated? If they were common knowledge, then would they not have been recognized in the Jesus story, and the Jesus story then rejected as a false tale (false in that it didn't actually take place in the context it claims)? Or was it known only to the educated, and thereby perpetuated among the masses for some sinister reason? Wouldn't there have been scholars of the time who rejected it? Would any of this be revealed in scholarly writings of the time? What about the scholars of the Nag Hammadi? Surely these were scholars who, though their writings were rejected by Church scholars of the time, actually support a historical reading of the Jesus story.

Or perhaps the ancient legends were common knowledge, and they were combined and set into a legend or story in the context of contemporary times for the sake of familiarity and understanding. Just as now, many people have difficulty relating to the story of Jesus, as much cultural and political issues of the time aren't necessarily relevant today, the ancient myths were translated into contemporary context for the sake of relation? Thus, this translation would have been commonly understood and accepted, thus the massive spread of "Christianity." If this were the case, could it be revealed in writings of early Church fathers?

Surely, early writings concerning the stories of the NT would reveal information regarding the correlation of the Jesus story with more ancient myths and legends? Wouldn't they? Or are all the correlations and parallels merely the make of fantasy, wishful thinking? Or perhaps, the correlations are real, but their interpretation something not yet properly understood?

Certainly, at the very least, I think it's a bit soon to jump hastily to a conclusion.

No Robots

There has been so much muck thrown around on this topic that few people can see through it to the personality you talk about. For many people, Jesus will always be synonymous with the church bullshit they were force fed; and they therefore have a real interest in denying any positive foundation for it all.

whitewater55

Check out the Krishna myths of India, which, by the way, would have been known to Greek scholars, through Alexander's conquests a couple of centuries before "Jesus". These pre-date Christianity by many centuries.
The parallels of virgin birth, slaughter of innocents, "God/man", death by nailing to a tree, the "redemptive" qualities of Krishna, and numerous other similarities to the "Jesus" story are quite remarkable.
Would not Paul, at least peripherally, been cognizant of this myth?
Just a little more fuel to the fire, so to speak.

Toto

Welcome to II, whitewater55. We have discussed Krishna before, and unfortunately, most of the parallels do not hold up. There was no virgin birth or most of the other similarities. And the Krishna myths cannot be dated with any degree of certainty. It is as likely that Christianity influenced later versions of the Krishna myth through Nestorian missionaries, as that Krishna influenced the Jesus myth. Here's a previous thread on Krishna.

We have an Indian contributor here who thinks that missionaries in India deliberately tried to make Krishna sound like Jesus as a way of making Christianity more appealing.

The idea of a Greek-India-Buddhism-Christianity connection is intriguing, but we don't actually have a lot of historical data.