2. How should we perceive Jesus Christ? As a mythical hero or a historical figure?

This post is a continuation of my previous post at https://www.facebook.com/groups/mythicism/posts/2592021484529609.

One of the comments on my previous post mentioned the synoptic problem. As is well known, the synoptic problem refers to the similarities and common passages found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which sometimes include word-for-word matches. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain this phenomenon. These theories typically attribute primacy to the Gospel of Mark, or propose the existence of a so-called "Q" source, or suggest a combination of both.

The problem is that none of them can explain the origin of the Synoptic Gospels. Besides, it is unclear why researchers tend to overlook the Gospel of John. After all, it tells the same story. 

However, the problem is more extensive than that. While all the Gospels share similar stories, each one also includes unique scenes. For example, the Nativity scene appears only in Matthew and Luke, and the accounts differ. Additionally, only John recounts the wedding at Cana in Galilee, while Mark omits both the Nativity and the wedding scenes entirely. There are many similar examples in the Gospels. 

No single Gospel offers a complete account of the events. As a result, any effort to identify a specific author as the primary source is destined to be unsuccessful from the outset. Additionally, the notion of a mythical source known as “Q” is unfounded. If such a source had existed, all the Gospel authors would have needed to describe the same set of events, but this is not the case. 

It is assumed that the Gospel of John was written later than the others. So where, then, did the story of the Wedding at Cana in Galilee come from? This scene does not appear in the other Gospels! 

The synoptic problem, along with the question of the origin of the Gospel of John, is ultimately unsolvable. The reason for this lies not in the characteristics of the Gospel texts themselves, but in the underlying assumptions of scholars. All scholars studying the Gospel texts have implicitly assumed that the authors—Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John—were specific historical figures. However, as I stated in my first post, this assertion lacks a scientific foundation. 

If we set aside the assumption that each Gospel has a distinct author and instead consider that the names attributed to these "authors" are simply different pen names for a single real author, the synoptic problem—and the problem of the distinctive features of the Gospel texts—would effectively disappear. In this scenario, the four Gospels become four interpretations of a single narrative, created by one author (or possibly several authors collaborating on a unified project). Each Gospel was crafted to highlight a specific aspect of the story that the author wished to convey. If this hypothesis holds true, the challenge lies in reconstructing the original story that is expressed through these four religious reflections.

New 5-star review on Goodreads from Jesse Neo

★★★★★ 

I've read my fair share of non-fiction religious commentary books, both for and against the Christian faith. So, when I picked up this one, I expected it to repeat the same recycled arguments.

However, by the time I finished it, I was left genuinely unsettled by its theory of what may have really happened 2,000 years ago, because it was so well researched and carefully argued.

The book first aims to dissect the "earthly story" of the Bible, stripping away supernatural elements to explore what might have actually happened in a historical and scientific context. Everything presented is supported with direct references to biblical verses. One of the most striking claims is the suggestion that the baby Jesus described in the Bible and the historical figure of Jesus may not be the same individual.

The second part of the book is even more intriguing. It explores why the Bible was written, who may have authored it, and the historical context behind figures such as angels and the Magi. It draws heavily on historical sources and presents a layered, thought-provoking argument.

I managed to finish the book in one sitting, and it made me question the foundations of mass religion. I'd recommend it to anyone with an open and curious mind.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251355135-the-secret-code-of-the-gospel-the-earthly-story

1. How should we perceive Jesus Christ? As a mythical hero or a historical figure?

To address this issue, we must first determine the perspective from which we intend to consider it. If we start from a religious perspective grounded in Christian doctrine, the answer is clear. It rests on a faith rooted in the Gospels, which clearly state that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. We cannot abandon this understanding, as doing so would immediately conflict with Christian faith, as evident in the wording of Historic Evangelical Doctrines:

«We believe that Scripture consists of the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament as originally inspired and given by the Holy Spirit. We believe that Scripture is infallible, inerrant, and to be received, read, believed and obeyed as the written Word of God.»

 A mythical interpretation of Jesus is possible only from a non-religious perspective. Such a perspective requires a rational or scientific approach. Therefore, we need to define the terms and the subject of the discussion as precisely as possible. 

It makes sense to simplify the original question by reducing it to a single, precisely definable concept. That concept is historicity. Accordingly, the initial question can be rephrased as follows: Is Jesus Christ, as described in the canonical Gospels, a historical figure? 

A question posed this way has a clear answer. No, the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels is not a historical figure. These books do not portray Jesus Christ as a human being. Instead, he is presented as both God and man. He could walk on water, turn water into wine, raise the dead, and predict the future. Furthermore, he rose from the dead. These are all religious elements and cannot be considered historical within a rational or scientific framework. 

However, another possibility exists. A real historical figure may have existed who made a strong impression on his contemporaries and inspired religious reflection in the Gospels and other New Testament documents. In this case, the Gospels would not be considered historical writings. They would be works of fiction, classified as historical novels, much like the novels of Alexandre Dumas. Such novels combine historical figures with characters created by the authors' imagination. 

Thus, the question of Jesus' historicity hinges on two key factors: our underlying worldview and our approach to the extant sources. These sources are books, specifically the four Gospels. 

When we speak of Alexandre Dumas’s historical novels, we refer to works the author himself defined as belonging to that genre. We know this author existed, when he lived, and what he wrote. But we know nothing about the authors of the Gospels. We do not know whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually existed; we do not know when the Gospels were written; and we do not know of any other works by these authors. We can only assume that the names listed refer to the authors of the corresponding texts. Moreover, these assumptions trace back to Eusebius of Caesarea—the author of "Church History", who lived in the fourth century AD. 

The Institute of the Christian Church accepted Eusebius's assumptions as indisputable facts, and over the following centuries, these facts became part of humanity's collective consciousness. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. 

The only established fact is that we have four books that tell a similar story. According to modern scientists, the oldest manuscripts of these books date back to the fourth century. Each book's title contains the word "Gospel" and the name of the person to whom the Gospel is attributed. All four works describe the same characters and attribute the same supernatural qualities to Jesus Christ, the main character.

Assuming that the four names mentioned in the book titles are the authors', many questions arise. For example, how can we explain that the authors do not cite one another or any other sources from which they drew the stories they describe? Why don't any of the authors discuss how their works were created? Furthermore, the authors themselves do not claim authorship of the texts.

Some believe that a source known as "Q" served as the basis for the three Gospels. However, this theory raises other questions. Why is Jesus’s birth described in only two of the three Gospels? Why do the accounts of his birth differ?

There are no definitive answers to the questions listed above. However, we can examine the four Gospels from a different perspective. These four books are written in such a way that they give the impression of being authored by eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Each Gospel has its own "author," suggesting there are four eyewitnesses. This could be a literary technique employed by the actual author to create the illusion of historical accuracy. 

Supporting this theory is the fact that all four Gospels have been preserved as part of a single document, the New Testament, which was established as the foundation of the Christian religion at the First Council of Nicaea in the fourth century.