Cretinist

I know there are a few different brands of the position that Jesus is entirely mythical, but what is generally accepted as the best one?

A common brand of Jesus mythicism found online tries to connect Jesus with other mythical beings like Horus, or with other religions like Mithraism. Some books attempt to ground the Jesus stories into the OT, specifically the Pentateuch. This approach seems to have considerable explanatory power.

G.A. Wells in The Historical Evidence for Jesus in one of the last chapters denounces some previous brands of mythicism that were popular earlier this century. I have to agree with him that some of those attempts were pretty loony, to say the least. His own brand of mythicism seems entirely plausible though.

So, any thoughts?

Toto

There are a variety of Jesus-myth proponents. Some of them are mystics who would prefer that Jesus be a mythical creature, and who think that the wrong side won in the early church struggles between the gnostics and the orthodox (Freke and Gandy in particular.)

IMHO, Earl Doherty in <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.com</a> makes a very rational historical case for the idea that the Jesus of the gospels was a mythic construction. He draws on a lot of the standard liberal scholarship. In fact, the historical Jesus constructed by modern scholarship seems to be so indistinct, that there is less of a gap between Doherty and the liberals than there is between the liberals and the Christian fundamentalists who think that the Gospels are close to being historically accurate.

Vorkosigan

The best case for mythicism, in my view, rests on comparison of the Jesus legends with similar complex collections of fables, legends and stories from around the world, especially those surrounding Founder figures. There do not seem to be many cases (none I can think of offhand) where the mythology reflects the history with any faithfulness, especially as you go farther back in history. Wholly mythical founder figures are not unknown (see Lao Tz), while other stories appear to be almost complete inventions about probably existing figures (see Mohammed). To aasert that the Jesus legends are historical is to deny that humans creatively transform the stories they tell as they tell them -- it denies the early Christians their just measure of humanity....

Vorkosigan

Cretinist

Hmm, did you create this view on your own Vork? I'm interested, and would like to subscribe to your newletter.

Tell me more, please.

Vorkosigan

Heck no, it's been around a long time in various forms. Read Price's Deconstructing Jesus which often uses comparisons -- for example, one of my favorites, Schneerson and the Lubavitchers, as well as Mohammed's successor Alli, who was deified as Allah incarnate even before his death. I consider it best because it finds the right context for the Jesus stories, at home in myth, legend and sacred history.

As Price says
<a href="http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpludman.html" target="_blank">http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpludman.html</a>
"There may have been a historical Jesus, one who lived in the time of Tiberius Caesar, but for us there is no longer any historical Jesus, only selective reconstructions which may or may not be on target. We can never know."
Vorkosigan

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

No, it is not. Furthermore, were the statement true or meaningful, it would be equaly true or meaningful for all legend rendering it, in my opinion, useless: Troy is a place of legend as is Tir Nan Og.

Kosh

<a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/siteindex?entry=Troy" target="_blank">Troy</a>

Vorkosigan

What part of my statement are you denying? I am not sure how to interpret your remarks.

Vorkosigan

Cretinist

Vork, I think he means that legends can contain elements of truth, so humans won't necessarily transform any of their legends beyond recognition. If I remember correctly, some guy was able to locate Troy using clues from Homer, so that seems to be why he mentioned Troy.

Am I correct, ReasonableDoubt?

Jayhawker Soule

Reformating ...

• 1: to assert that the Jesus legends are historical is to deny that humans creatively transform the stories they tell as they tell them
• 2: in this regard, the Jesus legends are not unique, therefore
• 3: to assert that any legend is historical is to deny that humans creatively transform the stories they tell as they tell them
• 4: since we know that humans creatively transform the stories they tell as they tell them
• 5: it is never logical to assert that legends are historical

If, by 'legend' you mean "a story which has been creatively transformed", and by 'historical' you mean "an accurately depicted past event", your assertion reduces to a none-too-useful tautology, i.e., creatively changed stories are not accurate. If not, it seems to me that your left with a non sequitur.

Of course, you could be simply begging the question by refering to "Jesus legends" in the first place ...

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>