Justin70

I hope I put this in the right area. If not, my apologies, moderators.

For the last couple of years I've held the theory of a "Mythical Jesus" to be most consistent with what informaton I've been presented. The reason I believe in this 'theory' is because of all the comparative religious studies I've done over the years.

I was reading over on TheologyWeb that there seems to be a growing movement that state the the "Myth Theory" based on similarities between religions is bogus. An outdate concept even.

Now, aside from snide comments and insults to Christians who hold the idea that this theory is crap, is there ANY reliable proof that disproves this idea?

I post this question here because I've found that, for the most part, people here are very intellectually honest with themselves and would like to see if I've missed anything in my research.

I hope that's enough information for you to understand. If not, ask and I'll attempt to clarify.

Thanks in advance. =)

Justin

Vorkosigan

In The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide Theissen and Merz attempt to tackle the issue of skepticism and evidences for the historical existence of the figure of the Gospels (deciding that the Gospel figure is mythical is not the same as deciding that there is no real figure under the myth at all). Their arguments for the historicity of Jesus are shockingly weak, consisting largely of assertions backed by no methodology whatsoever, but fundamentally they assert that (1) there are outside vectors (Josephus, Mara Bar Serapion, Tacitus, (2) Paul knows some details of the Jesus story (so he could have known more), (3) the various gospels act as a check on one another, (4) the post-Easter back projections nevertheless have not blotted out the HJ, (5) some traditions can be dated back to before the Synoptics, (6) traditions of Jesus are called "memories" by the early commentators, (7) other social movements in other times have individuals who shaped them at the center of the movement, (8) even though some things were invented out of the OT, other times they used the OT to cover actual historical events....

....and so on. I am not going to list them all. I suggest getting hold of that book. It is extremely useful and interesting, a good summary of tons of different information, and you will be happily surprised at how incredibly weak the historical arguments actually are.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Michael, if you haven't seen it before, you will enjoy immensely the comments of Darrell J. Doughty on Theissen. To be fair to Theissen, though, the existence of Jesus is an underdeveloped subject among professional scholars, and thus one gets points just for touching it.

I don't think that Theissen's book will answer the OP, which is the question of the so-called "history of religions" or "comparative religions" approach to the story, that of drawing parallels between the Christ figure and other mythical figures to show that the stories are not true. There are people who say that this approach is "out of date," but they would be hard pressed to name the book or produce the evidence that put it to rest. However, I have come across a book that attempts to address the subject for the layman. It is called The Gospel and the Greeks by Ronald Nash. I paid too much buying it used; you can order it from Probe for $13.50.

Good luck in your studies!

best,
Peter Kirby

Dominus Paradoxum

If you want to see the case for Mythicism made out, you should really go to this website.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Peter. That's exactly what I wanted to say! My marginal notes on that chapter have spilled all over the book.

You know, the more I read about it, the more I think you were right about 1 Clement and I -- and Ellegaard -- are wrong. In fact, figuring out how all those documents relate to each other is like on of those square puzzles you had when you were a kid, and you had slide the blocks around to make them form a shape, and damned if the last one never went in...

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

That's for sure! What arguments have turned you away from Ellegard's dating? I haven't yet gotten around to updating my 1 Clem. article, and your comments could help.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Vork, I know you must be busy, but I am very curious to hear what you have to say on the matter. Thanks!

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Sorry, Peter, missed your post!

Nothing, really. I was re-reading the Dutch Radical comments on the strangeness of 1 Clement, its artificiality. They really struck home. Also, I re-read Bernard Muller's stuff on Acts and the way he dates 1 Clement. Which is also later than Ellegaard. So I've decided that the late date makes more sense than the earlier one, even though powerful arguments can be developed for both.

It seems there are really two sets of grounds, one linguistic pace Ellegaard, and the other historical, pace everybody else. The two groups conflict. Further, there seem to be two sets of terminology about Christianity, one that Ellegaard dates in the first century, the other he places in the second. But if they represent competing circles of terminology rather than evolutionary developments, then Acts, which is the only document that is familiar with both, is crucial as the site where they were unified by a single author, probably deliberately. Sorry...don't quite know how to express the idea. But that would make Acts later, anyway.

I commute 45 minutes to work every day, so get lots of time to think! Damned if nothing seems to work.

Vorkosigan