the timboucher experience

Via Fantastic Planet, I found an interesting post by Jordan Stratford recently, in which he talks about the hunt for the historical Jesus. In it, Stratford talks about some of the research which indicates that the story of Jesus was essentially cobbled together out of pieces of other religions. He then suggests that people (especially so-called gnostics) ought to choose which side of the fence they stand on in regards to the Jesus mythos:

Either Jesus Christ was a man who lived 2,000 years ago, suffered under Pontius Pilate and died, or he was not. Alternatively he was, rather is a Mythic Hero, a godman indistinguishable from the timeless and universal Truth of Wasir/Heru (Osiris/Horus), Dionysis, and Mithras.

One can, I suppose, choose a middle road - once upon a time there was possibly a Rabbi, maybe an Essene, who said a lot things quoted/misquoted in the Gospels and ran afoul of the authorities in some fashion - a hybrid historical personage onto whom later was grafted the ideals of Hellenized Jews in Egypt, inheriting cultural strata from numerous mythic sources. But to my mind this course is ultimately intellectually dishonest.

The Fantastic Planet post which lead me here featured an excellent rebuttal:

Obviously, there’s no right or wrong answer. I can only provide my own answer to the question, which is that to me, it’s the information that’s important, not the method of delivery. I couldn’t care less whether Jesus was *really* born of a virgin, or Jesus was *really* just a Jewish version of Osiris-Dionysus. I certainly don’t care whether Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. What concerns me is the substance of the teachings, the entirety of the mythic complex.

The gnostics generally encouraged the creation of individual mythic semiotic structures, individual stories passed around within each community that helped the individuals experience ‘gnosis.’ I’ve been developing my own such story for years.

I tend to myself prefer this approach to Stratford’s original “line in the sand” style. For me, gnosticism and alternative approaches to religion tend to allow me to fuse together things, rather than choosing one over the other. Beyond that though, last night I thought of an even better way of looking at the whole dilemma.

So we have two characters here: the “historical” Jesus and the “mythical” Jesus. An excellent parallel to understanding this situation is actors and the roles they play in movies. You could say the historical Jesus is an actor. For the sake of argument, let’s temporarily agree that Jeus might have been a real person. But the only way us, the movie-going public, ever knows him is through the movies that he stars in.

Now, he has starred in a lot of different movies. You might know him from “The Son of God” or its sequel, “The Savior of Mankind.” He has also starred in lesser known works such as “Pagan God Man” and “Mystery Religions, Part 3.” And there were those critically-acclaimed independent films that came out recently, “Jewish Rabbi” and “Jesus, Married With Children.”

Now, some of those movies were better than others, and did better at the box office, and with secondary and overseas markets. And we each have our favorites, as we’re supposed to. The fact that Jesus was in a lot of different “movies” doesn’t discredit him. It’s instead a testament to his versatility, star-quality and staying-power. The camera loves him, so to speak.

And really, when you get down to it, at the end of the day “Historical Jesus” is just one more movie role that he plays in. It’s no better or worse technically than any of his other films. I think the thing is, that you should judge his work as a whole, no matter which movie is your favorite.

• Did Jesus Fake His Own Death?
• Jesus as an organizing principle
• I am Jesus
• Gospel of Thomas
• Gnostic Jesus Different From New Testament Jesus?