Jayjay

I don't lurk at BC&A board much, so perhaps this question is somewhat simplistic... but I'd like to know what is the most convincing argument in favour of mythical Jesus as opposed to historical Jesus? To a layman like me, it sounds rather convoluted to assume a mythical origin for Jesus when you might as well have had a real person behind all the legends. Not to mention that there are some passages in the gospels that don't really seem to fit a mythological construct... why would the gospel authors (or whoever came up with the original stories) had invented stories where Jesus curses the fig tree or says stuff like "you'll always have the poor, but you won't always have me"?

So, why not believe in historical Jesus?

Peter Kirby

The leading lights of mythicism seem to agree that the case is an "argument to the best explanation" that attempts to account for the data of the early Christian record as a whole. Perhaps it could be said that HJ scholars focus on the gospels to the neglect of other sources for reconstructing early Christianity? In a thread a while back, I presented this outline of the structure of the mythicist abductive argument, based on the "Twelve Pieces of the Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty:

A) Early Christians held to a spirit-only Jesus.
A) [1] Jeus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.
A) [3] The early epistles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new "salvation" movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.
A) [4] Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.
A) [11] The initial variety of sects and beliefs about a spiritual Christ shows that the movement began as a multiplicity of largely independent and spontaneous developments based on the religious trends and philosophy of the time, not as a response to a single individual.
A) [12] Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith. Only gradually did the Jesus of Nazareth portrayed in the Gospels come to be accepted as historical.

B) The Gospels are pure fiction.
B) [8] All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Acts of the Apostles, as an account of the beginnings of the Christian apostolic movement, is a second century piece of myth-making.
B) [9] The Gospels are not historical accounts, but constructed through a process of "midrash," a Jewish method of reworking old biblical passages and tales to reflect new beliefs. The story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is a pastiche of verses from scripture.
B) [10] "Q", a lost sayings collection extracted from Matthew and Luke, made no reference to a death and resurrection and can be shown to have had no Jesus at its roots: roots which were ultimately non-Jewish. The Q community preached the kingdom of God, and its traditions were eventually assigned to an invented founder who was linked to the heavenly Jesus of Paul in the Gospel of Mark.

C) No first century historian mentions Jesus.
C) [2] There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.
C) Justus of Tiberias did not mention Jesus.

D) A heavenly divine intermediary Christ fits the cultural context.
D) [5] The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly conterparts to earthly things. Paul's Christ operates within this system.
D) [6] The pagan "mystery cults" of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not on earth or in history. Paul's Christ shares many features with these deities.
D) [7] The prominent philosophical-religious concept of the age was the intermediary Son, a spiritual channel between the ultimate transcendent God and humanity. Such intermediary concepts as the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom were models for Paul's heavenly Christ.

For more information, see Doherty's web site:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Richard Carrier published a review of Doherty's book here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uspuzzle.shtml

Also, if you decide to study the issue more, I would be interested in publishing your thoughts on the matter at my own web site:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/

I'm sure you're wondering what my views are... so I'll tell you that I am wondering too.

best,
Peter Kirby

exnihilo

The simplest answer is just the lack of proof outside of the bible. As it stands there is not one record of Jesus' life that hasn't been shown to be a forgery. Historians find it a bit odd that from Roman records one can asertain such things as the names of petty criminals executed, the amount of grain imported/exported, the executions of petty criminals, but there is no mention of Jesus, especially considering the threat that he represented.

If that doesn't suffice isn't the whole idea of a god coming to earth, in the form of a man, to sacrifice himself for the world's salvation sound a bit absurd? Come to think of it Zeus came to earth many times, albeit for different reasons, but no sane individual would claim that he actually existed.

mark9950

If jesus was and is God,omnipotent,omnipresent, and still alive from the resurrection ask a christian if you can meet him in person at that very moment.

With all the omniwhatevers there should be no problem.

Magus55

And why is the Bible not sufficient? If you had 20 or so separate books at your library, all of which talk about the life of Jesus - you probably wouldn't question His historicity. You seem to forget, the bible is not one book, its 66 books, written by over 40 others, over the period of several thousand years. The Bible wasn't made one book until much later in history. The Bible is 66 separate bibliographic sources.

Magus55

edited by moderator

winstonjen

edited by moderator

Doctor X

Oh . . . why not?

Because the relevant texts were written decades after the events and contradict one another.

To quote Claudius: "Quality not quantity."

The rest is irrelevant to the issue.

--J.D.

Magus55

What difference does being written a couple decades after matter? They were still written by the people that witnessed it. And actually, to be more precise, they were probably only "finished" decades later. It takes years for writers to write a book and publish and spell check etc. etc even today. I'm sure it takes a heck of a lot longer to write a book, with the complexity of the Bible, and with no modern technology. I hardly consider that a valid claim against the Bible. And we don't know the exact dates that the NT was written. Paul had to be written before 64 A.D since thats when He died, but He could have written it in 40 A.D, only 7 years after Jesus died. If the NT was written, say a couple hundred years later - then I could maybe see your point - but 2000 years ago, all being written within the first Century is hardly a big deal. I'm sure plenty of other historical figures had books written about them 30 or 40 years later, maybe not even by eyewitnesses - yet you would accept them as fact, easily.

winstonjen

If the bulk of it truly was dictation, there would be no need for such things.

Nothing would be considered a valid claim to you. You seem to be too dependent on your faith.