[
Replying to post 108 by Zzyzx]
Of course I can explain why Jesus cannot be a myth. Many 20th, and now 21st century persons who are not theologians have lost their faith by making the false assumption that the stories that surround the historical Jesus are myth. They cite the "historical-critical method" and "higher criticism" as reasons for reducing (in their mind) the NT to a melange of myth and mysticism. So, why couldn't Christ be a myth, like the myth that grew up around the Buddha stating that he was a god? Overdone hero worship does tend to mythologize the idol, so wouldn't that be a reasonable explanation for the data surrounding the life of Jesus?
No. In fact, the data themselves make the myth scenario impossible.
1. If we approach the NT with the same neutral, objective, and scientific approach with which we approach every other ancient document, the NT proves to be the most reliable of all. No book in history has been attacked, cut-up, reconstructed, and stood on its head as much as the NT, and yet it lives, and furthermore, the story, written over many years, holds together.
2. The state of the NT manuscripts is very good. Compared with all other ancient documents, the NT stands up at 10x more sure. For example, there exist 500 copies that can be dated earlier than 500 CE. The next most reliable of ancient texts is Homer's ILIAD, and we have only 50 copies of that that date from 500 years or less of its origin. We have only one copy of Tacitus' ANNALS, yet no one is reluctant to treat that as AUTHENTIC history. If the books of the NT did not contain accounts of miracles or a portrait of a man who was both 100% God and 100% human, no scholar - and probably no lay person - would be even tempted to treat it with the slightest degree of skepticism. Therefore, we can see it is NOT objective science that introduces myth into the life of Jesus and the NT, but subjective prejudice and personal bad theology. The NT mss. in our collective possession are not only ancient, they are mutually reinforcing and consistent, for the most part. There are very few discrepancies and NO important ones. Yes, Matthew and Luke do write different Nativities, and Jesus' ministry is given at one year plus in one gospel and three years plus in another, but in the important theological data, they are totally consistent. And these are texts written by different people, at different times, and in different places, for different audiences. In addition, the other ancient texts that have been discovered, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls, have confirmed rather than refuted the NT data.
3. If Jesus' divinity was a myth invented by later generations of the Church, then there had to be 2-3 generations between the eyewitnesses of the historical Jesus and the universal belief in the new, mythologized Jesus, otherwise the myth could have never taken shape because it would have been immediately refuted by Jesus' eyewitnesses. Both followers and enemies of Jesus would have had good reason to expose a myth. However, there exists no evidence whatsoever of anyone - EVER - opposing "the myth of the divinized Jesus." No competent biblical scholar today denies that almost all of the NT was written during the first century. Certainly Paul's letters were a product of the first century and Paul's letters clearly state Christ's divinity.
4. If a mythic layer were added onto an originally human only Jesus, we WOULD find SOME evidence of that mythic layer. Instead, we find absolutely NONE, not internally in the NT, itself, or externally, in other sources, such as Josephus.
5. The gospels are not written in the style of myth. Anyone who is familiar with mythic literary styles can compare the accounts of Jesus to actual myth and see a vast difference. (It is like comparing biography with science fiction today - anyone could see the difference.) The differences are remarkable and unmistakable. Ovid's METAMORPHOSIS is an example of a pagan myth, and it is nothing like the literary style of the NT. The gospel writers did NOT invent modern realistic fantasy 20 centuries ago. Sure, science fiction and fantasy can be replete with detail, but REALISTIC science fiction did not exist in first century anywhere. They include dozens and dozens of little details that someone not living in the first century could not know, and they contain NO second century anachronisms.
6. The claim of Jesus as God makes sense of his trial and crucifixion. The Jews were HIGHLY SENSITIVE to blasphemy, and this sensitivity was unique to them. No one but a Jewish tribunal would insist on death for a claim to be God. For the Romans, the more gods, the merrier. Jesus had no political ambitions, a fact that disappointed some of his followers. His lack of political ambition is the main reason the Jews did not accept him as the long-awaited Messiah; he did not liberate them from the Romans. It was difficult for Jesus to remain apolitical; his followers wanted to proclaim him a king.
7. There are four gospels, as you know. And they were written by different men, in different times, in different places, so a lot of cross-checking is possible. Through textual triangulation, we can know the facts of Jesus' life with FAR GREATER accuracy than any other personage or series of events. The only inaccuracies occur in dates and numbers, e.g. how many angels were seen in the empty tomb, etc.
8. If the divine Jesus of the gospels is a myth, who invented it? The first disciples? A later generation? There can be no possible motive for either to do so. Until the Emperor Constantine converted and issued the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, Christians were persecuted. We DO KNOW THIS even if we can't say with certainty how every apostle died. The early Christians were tortured, martyred, hated, and oppressed. They were fed to lions as sport in the Colosseum. Who goes to a bloody and painful death for a myth? Some of the Christians denied Christ to save themselves from death, but none ever gave him up as a myth. The emperors never even asked them to give him up as a myth, so presumable, even the emperors accepted his divinity. They just didn't like people worshipping him.
9. To study the NT correctly, one has to be conversant with the culture of first century Jerusalem, and I don't know who is and who is not here, however, first century Jews were not prone to believe myth. They were "demythologized" far more than other peoples were, and are. The Jews were adamantly and intolerably opposed to myth. No one on this earth would be LESS like to have confused a myth with fact than a first century Jew
10. Finally, anyone who has read the entire Bible with an OPEN MIND knows that NO MERE MAN could invent the accounts that surround the life of Jesus. Sure, there have been wildly imaginative authors like Tolkien, but even his books do not approach the NT. The entire Bible, written over thousands of years, hangs together as seamlessly as if it had been written in one go by the same man.
I know atheism, wicca, etc. are en vogue today, but that does not make Jesus' divinity untrue. He is 100% man and 100% God. If people WANT to reject God, he allows that. We all have free will. I do not deny anyone's right to reject God, however, as a theologian, I defend the faith when I see it attacked. Some people will believe me, more will not. Remember, only a "small remnant" will be chosen to join Christ in his kingdom. If I am among that "small remnant" then I am very blessed by God's eternal grace.
Note: I owe much of the above to Dr. Peter Kreeft, with whom I studied. Part is mine, part what I learned from him.
