Are the Gospels Mythical?
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Girard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1996 First Things 62 (April 1996): 27-31.
From the earliest days of Christianity, the Gospels' resemblance to certain myths has been used as an argument against Christian faith. When pagan apologists for the official pantheism of the Roman empire denied that the death-and-resurrection myth of Jesus differed in any significant way from the myths of Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, Attis, etc., they failed to stem the rising Christian tide. In the last two hundred years, however, as anthropologists have discovered all over the world foundational myths that similarly resemble Jesus' Passion and Resurrection, the notion of Christianity as a myth seems at last to have taken hold-even among Christian believers."
"The true Resurrection is based not on the mythical lie of the guilty victim who deserves to die, but on the rectification of that lie, which comes from the true God and which reopens channels of communication mankind itself had closed through self-imprisonment in its own violent cultures."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rene Girard is the Andrew B. Hammond Professor Emeritus of French Language, Literature, and Civilization at Stanford University. His many books include Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would appreciate it if some of you would like to read this article and give your comments on it, in particular those who look upon the Gospel as just another Myth.
"The true Resurrection is based not on the mythical lie of the guilty victim who deserves to die, but on the rectification of that lie, which comes from the true God and which reopens channels of communication mankind itself had closed through self-imprisonment in its own violent cultures."
I don't have any idea what is said here, what is a "guilty victim who deserves to die"? I must be missing context. Was it Balder who was killed (indirectly) by Loki?
Hmmm "true God". People at one time in certain places believed that Odin was the true god; this assertion is just an assertion, unless you believe it. If your personal belief system demands that you believe in the god of the bible, and this belief brings you comfort and joy, you're a lucky person.
Having said that, and seeing as how you brought up the topic, how many similarities can we find between the different religious belief systems that have been invented? Are there other Messiahs out there?
EDIT: I find it difficult to argue against another person's faith. My own belief is that faith is a personal matter. What I don't like is that other faiths may be imposed upon me by law or otherwise. It's why I think that a secular humanist society is the best available one today; by keeping religion out of public institutions, religious freedom is preserved because no one faith can supress others.
2nd EDIT: In the style of the RHP forums show me that I'm either:
1. Hellbound
2. A complete moron
3. A homo
4. Paranoid
5. Drunk
Go ahead.
"The true Resurrection is based not on the mythical lie of the guilty victim who deserves to die, but on the rectification of that lie. . . ."
The point he brings up here is somewhat valid in that the vicims in most myths are considered guilty while Jesus, from the point of view of the Bible, is considered innocent. However, as my counter-measure to this point I have to say: "The histories are written by the victors."
In other words, it is the perspective of the Gospels that is different, not the guilt or lack of guilt placed on the victim. The Gospels were written by the followers of Jesus, so of course they paint him in a good light. Most myths are actually told from the perspective of the "mob," so equally obvious is the emphasis on the victim's guilt in these stories.
So, in conclusion: the article was an interesting distraction, but ultimately full of crap.
I would like to state for the record here that I do believe that the Gospels are at least in part "mytholocical," or factually untrue. That of course does not mean that it does not hold truth, however. The similarity of the "Passion" to other myths only work to debunk the factual issue; this same similarity actually works to prove that the essence, what I like to call the "Aspect," of the Gospels is indeed true. If all these cultures kept coming up with the same general story, then the possibility that the Aspect is actually ingrained in our very souls becomes apparent. Also, the unique perspective of the Gospels (see above) certainly deserves more merit than it gets.
So I would say that I am certainly pro-Gospel, that is is unique (in a way) and that it holds much truth.
It doesn't even matter if not a single word of it is true.
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThere are authors who discuss what you call 'Aspect.' They call
this same similarity actually works to prove that the essence, what I like to call the "Aspect," of the Gospels is indeed true. If all these cultures kept coming up with the same general story, then the possibility that the Aspect is actually ingrained in our very souls becomes apparent.
them Archetypes. They include the Trickster, the Messiah figure,
the Twin, &c. They are the general themes which mythologies
which have no geographical or chronological relationship share.
Jung talks about this 'collective unconscious' a lot -- that is the
part of us ingrained by virtue of our being human that expresses
itself through the stories that we invent, or the creative license we
take describing the things we experience.
However, given that Jesus was in fact a historical figure complicates
matters somewhat; even atheists don't question whether or not Jesus
the man existed. However, what is at question is the historical veracity
of the Gospel stories, and the degree of their veracity (given mutually
exclusive accounts, for example, of the Last Supper being a Passover
Sater or not in the Synoptic or Johannine accounts, respectively).
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioHowever, given that Jesus was in fact a historical figure complicates
There are authors who discuss what you call 'Aspect.' They call
them Archetypes. They include the Trickster, the Messiah figure,
the Twin, &c. They are the general themes which mythologies
which have no geographical or chronological ...[text shortened]... t in the Synoptic or Johannine accounts, respectively).
Nemesio
matters somewhat; even atheists don't question whether or not Jesus
the man existed.
I find what you are saying here interesting, but I would point out that quite a few atheists and some respected Biblical scholars question whether Jesus is a historical figure or a mythical figure.
A great place to start looking at the controversy is the Jesus Seminar.
Originally posted by telerionWhat? I am familiar with the Jesus Seminar and don't recall
I find what you are saying here interesting, but I would point out that quite a few atheists and some respected Biblical scholars question whether Jesus is a historical figure or a mythical figure.
A great place to start looking at the controversy is the Jesus Seminar.
their ever claiming that Jesus never existed.
Would you kindly provide a citation for this claim?
Nemesio
Originally posted by thesonofsaul"In other words, it is the perspective of the Gospels that is different," thesonofsaul
"The true Resurrection is based not on the mythical lie of the guilty victim who deserves to die, but on the rectification of that lie. . . ."
The point he brings up here is somewhat valid in that the vicims in most myths are considered guilty while Jesus, from the point of view of the Bible, is considered innocent. However, as my counter-measure ...[text shortened]... ) and that it holds much truth.
It doesn't even matter if not a single word of it is true.
Different in which way? That theirs is the only true belief system? I suggest that Odin was meant to be believed in in that case. Other people believed in their gods.
Originally posted by nemesioI was thinking of Dr. Robert Price for the Jesus Seminar. From what I'd gathered there are others in the JS that take the "mythological Jesus" view.
What? I am familiar with the Jesus Seminar and don't recall
their ever claiming that Jesus never existed.
Would you kindly provide a citation for this claim?
Nemesio
Here is a link from the Secular Web with some non-academic articles written by Price as well as some articles by other qualified individuals on the subject.
If you are interested in finding atheist's and others that disagree with the "historical Jesus" view, I encourage you to check out the www.infidels.org forums and then go to the Biblical History and Criticism section. Quite a few experts there discuss the issue.
Another one that just came to mind is Frank Zindler at American Atheist.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/
You'll find several articles by Zindler in which he gives reasons for doubting that Jesus of Nazereth actually existed.
Note: I'm not trying to prove that Jesus was not a historical figure, rather I'm bringing to your attention that not all atheists/Biblical scholars agree that the Jesus in the NT was a real human that lived 2000 years ago.
Originally posted by KneverKnightDifferent in that Jesus is considerd a persecuted innocent in the Gospels, while in most mythologies the victim is considered quite guilty. The idea that the gospels represent the only true belief system is, as you so rightly point out, far from original.
"In other words, it is the perspective of the Gospels that is different," thesonofsaul
Different in which way? That theirs is the only true belief system? I suggest that Odin was meant to be believed in in that case. Other people believed in their gods.
Originally posted by nemesioJust because there was a man named Jesus who was said to exist and crucified in some mouldy record does not make him a historical figure. Name one actual work of history where he was mentioned and cronicled and then, after reserching the matter more carefully, your claim might have some merit in my eyes.
However, given that Jesus was in fact a historical figure complicates
matters somewhat; even atheists don't question whether or not Jesus
the man existed. However, what is at question is the historical veracity
of the Gospel stories, and the degree of their veracity . . .
Nemesio[/b]
As for doubting specific acts in the Bible, the "historical veracity of the Gospel stories," as you put it, does not doubting even one detail discredit the whole thing as a historical document without any corresponding document to back it up?
Oh, and you're right. I should read some Jung. I spent a bit too much time in college drinking instead of studying, it seems. It sounds like he has some ideas worth exploring.
Originally posted by KneverKnight
"The true Resurrection is based not on the mythical lie of the guilty victim who deserves to die, but on the rectification of that lie, which comes from the true God and which reopens channels of communication mankind itself had closed through self-imprisonment in its own violent cultures."
I don't have any idea what is said here, what is a "gui ...[text shortened]... I'm either:
1. Hellbound
2. A complete moron
3. A homo
4. Paranoid
5. Drunk
Go ahead.
Have you read the whole article on
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html
??
Originally posted by thesonofsaulBy historical figure I mean, a person who factually existed
Just because there was a man named Jesus who was said to exist and crucified in some mouldy record does not make him a historical figure. Name one actual work of history where he was mentioned and cronicled and then, after reserching the matter more carefully, your claim might have some merit in my eyes.
about whom we know something and who had an impact
on the world.
Name an actual work of 'history' that mentioned 'Socrates.'
If you are going to mention the 'Republic' for example, then
why can't someone mention the Gospel of St Mark?
Do you really believe that Socrates said, literally, all the things
Plato attributed to him? Of course you don't; those dialogues
were written after the event, after Socrates' death by his pupil,
Plato. They might even contain a little more about Plato than
Socrates, depending on the text and which scholar you ask.
Do you still question the Socrates was a historical figure? Of
course you don't.
My question above was in reference to Telerion's comment that
some people maintain that Jesus the man never existed.
If he existed, there can be no doubt that he is a historical figure,
given the tremendous impact his teachings (and the interpretations
of those teachings) had on the history of the world.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioDo you still question the Socrates was a historical figure? Of
By historical figure I mean, a person who factually existed
about whom we know something and who had an impact
on the world.
Name an actual work of 'history' that mentioned 'Socrates.'
course you don't.
Actually, I do. I have more than a suspicion that Socrates was completely made up my his so called pupil, Plato. Why, you ask? Because no one would ever listen to a pathetic nobody like Plato, but in a society that believed in the veneration of one's elders and especially one's teachers, Plato's teacher would actually have merit.
Of course, Plato obviously had teachers somewhere along the line. Who knows, perhaps one of them was even named Socretes. Everything in the Republic, however, is Plato to the core. If we are going to use Socretes and Plato as an example, then we can therefore state that there is nothing in the Gospels of Jesus, only the very wise ideas of Jesus' followers who used the name of Jesus to further their own philosophies.
My point all along is that there is nothing wrong with this as long as the documents in question are not taken as actual histories, as the works of Plato are certainly not.
One more thing:
If he existed, there can be no doubt that he is a historical figure,
Well, duh. If he never existed, there is no way he can be a historical figure. Contrariwise, just because his name has had an impact, does not mean that the man himself is a historical figure.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Actually, I do. I have more than a suspicion that Socrates was completely made up my his so called pupil, Plato. Why, you ask? Because no one would ever listen to a pathetic nobody like Plato, but in a society that believed in the veneration of one's elders and especially one's teachers, Plato's teacher would actually have merit.
Well, in the absence of photography, then anyone could claim that any
so-called historical figure didn't exist. Everyone could be part of some
'conspiracy' (knowingly or not) to add to this imaginary person's reputation.
For me, the one criterion for determining the reliability of a given source
is its chronological proximity to the supposed historical figure in question.
The reliability of that source is judged by the author's perspective where
both pro-figure and anti-figure stances are weighed with suspicion.
Lastly, the source is judged by modern scholarly text critical and redactive
measures, preferably by several different schools of thought.
I've never heard of any serious scholar claiming that either Socrates or
Jesus the man didn't historically exist. I've reviewed Telerion's website
but don't find any of the arguments reasonably persuasive; if he wanted
to cite specific issues from that webpage in another thread, I could expound
upon by thoughts, but as it is a bit off topic, I'll resist for now.
Nemesio