When it comes to responding to the Jesus Myth Theory, two of the main ways is to increase your understanding of mythology and of the Bible. Both are very important as in my experience, Mythicists tend to misrepresent both.
When it comes to mythology, I generally recommend classics textbooks or other books on mythology by trained and recognized classicists and scholars. I have tried to build up my library in this area.
One such book is Classical Mythology: Images and Insights, by Stephen L. Harris and Gloria Platzner. I will admit that I have an older edition (3rd) and so I do not know how this compares to the latest edition.
First the good news. I found it was a nice introduction to classical mythology, mostly Greek but some Roman. The introductions were good, giving the basics without overloading on detail. I especially liked how each chapter concluded with extensive sharing from the primary sources. This will give the reader a helpful immersion into what the myths actually say.
Now the bad news. While the authors are great when they stick to the myths, they tend to stumble when they try to make connections outside of that area. They seem especially interested in how classical myths connect and inform our understanding of the Bible.
For example, they have a section where they try to show the parallels between Dionysus and Jesus. They make this explicit statement: “In interpreting the significance of Jesus’ life to a Greco-Roman audience, New Testament authors employed numerous parallels to Dionysian myths.” (p. 508)
First, I should explain what they are saying and not saying. They do not claim that Jesus was based on Dionysus or that the historicity of Jesus is on the same level as the historicity of Dionysus. What they are saying is that New Testament authors used parallels with Dionysus to present the story of Jesus to an audience familiar with those myths.
But even in this, they are giving away too much. If you look at the general picture of Jesus in the Gospels and compare that to the story of Dionysus given in this textbook, they are extremely different. Supposed parallels such as the importance of wine or rejection by a community, are quite weak.
The authors seem interested in ideas of typology and that is fine. It is fair to say that there are common images floating around in a literary world that deals with both fiction and non-fiction.
However, seeing similarities does not necessarily mean that there is a strong connection and definitely does not require causation or even inspiration by older stories.
I do think Classical Mythology is a helpful textbook but I would be interested to know if later editions backed off on some of the suggestions made about potential overlap with the Bible.
