Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If you concede that a historical Jesus existed, or, in alternative, that a mythical Jesus was adored by the early Christians (in primis, by the apostle called Paul) by visions and revelations, then the first gospel has to be called a legend in both the cases. Is not it true?

My point is that the first gospel can't be called a legend only if you think that a first gospel started it all, Paul and epistles included (which is unbelievable, but I am interested to concepts here).

What do you think?

A story about a person who certainly lived (e.g. Geo. Washington and the Cherry Tree) can be "legendary": True OR False.
A story about a mythical character is only legendary.

All of the Bible is legendary, I believe. That doesn't necessarily equate to False in all the details, however.

There are kinds of truth underlying myths, which I am interested to see and compare.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:06 amMy point is that the first gospel can't be called a legend only if you think that a first gospel started it all, Paul and epistles included (which is unbelievable, but I am interested to concepts here).

I don't understand this. Is there a wrinkle in the Universe, perhaps?

And: Why is everything in Paul and all the Epistles False?

Indeed I should specify what I mean by "legend": a story that is born as mere hearsay, such that its origin can't be more traced precisely.

Attention: This is not a generic profession of agnosticism about the historicity of Jesus, since I have made it clear that the Origin is distinctly known (== you choose the paradigm). I am going to call a legend the origin of the first gospel hence I call it a "legend".

Frankly, while, assuming genuine epistles, one can decide the Origins of Jesus (for example, he/she can conclude from the epistles that Jesus never existed), what he/she can't do is to find the origin of the Gospel legend.