there is a case for a mythical jesus, more so then biblical jesus being real.
I will agree that its not that strong but there are scholarships on it.
the use of the word myth is also wide and varied, one could claim jesus is a myth and they would be 100% correct in my opinion, as biblical jesus is not historical jesus.
Now I do believe there is a historical person that we are given a partial biased view to in scripture.
heres some points to consider
Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, there is ambiguity in the meaning of the words:
Thus, there is a large variance regarding
how the Gospel Jesus is a myth; for instance:
- The Jesus character could be a pure allegoric myth to which historical details (possibly including an actual obscure 1st century teacher of the same name) were added later, forming a composite character. Some scholars contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism, drawing on perceived parallels between the early stories of Jesus and the gods of Greek, Egyptian, and other cultures (especially dying and rising deities).[5][6][7][8][9][10]
- The Jesus character could be a myth that grew up around a historical Jesus who devised the founding tenets of his new religion.[1][11] Some scholars accept that Jesus did live in the 1st century but that the Gospel version is a composite character made of several would-be Christs and that no one particular person can be said to be the founder of Christianity,[12] while others say that the Gospel version is based on a single individual who lived around 100 BCE and who was made to seem of the 1st century CE.[13][14]
- The Gospel account of Jesus is so full of myth and legend that determining the historical accuracy of anything reasonably close to the man described is impossible.[15]
Supporters of the various Jesus myth theories point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus before his crucifixion, the fact that almost all sources after the crucifixion are by Christians, and the relative scarcity and disputed veracity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century.
Nearly all
Bible scholars involved with
historical Jesus research maintain that the existence of the New Testament Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence, although they differ on the degree to which material about him in the New Testament should be taken at face value.
[16]
Because the term "Christ Myth theory" can refer to the idea that the story of Jesus is a myth as well as the man himself being a pure allegory myth
[31] there is great confusion in the literature regarding just what the term actually means. A few authors (such as John Remsburg and Dan Barker) make a distinction between the Jesus of the Gospel (Jesus of Bethlehem) and a possible Jesus of history (Jesus of Nazareth) but many authors others don't creating confusion regarding if they are talking about Jesus being a historical or philosophical myth.
Compounding matters is that the view regarding the
Historicity of Jesus is a spectrum of ideas and that breaking this spectrum down into categories tends to be dependent on the author in question.
