schilling.klaus

no, as a myth requires a metaphysical meaning

that'd be a parody, but not a myth,
as it is devoid of any metaphysical significance underneath


Klaus Schilling

patcleaver

Solitary Man, instead of babling about irrelevent stuff, why don't you just present your evidence that Mark is not fiction.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Klaus,

Thanks for bringing up this thread again.

It seems to me that we are extending the idea of an historical personage too much if we say that anybody that holds that a mythological figure is based on an historical figure automatically holds a historical position. If we extend it this way than practically nobody can be said to hold a mythological Jesus position.

Consider that Superman, according to his creator, Jerry Siegel, was based partially on the actors Harold Lloyd and Douglas Fairbanks. There is certainly nothing metaphysical about Lloyd or Fairbanks. Shall we say that Siegel believed in an "historical Superman"? According to Siegel, Lois Lane was based partly on the actress Lola Lane who starred as a female reporter named Torchy Blane in a movie just before the comic book Superman began in 1938. Do we want to call this an historical Lois Lane theory?

What about Darth Vader? George Lucas said that the character is based on the character of Hakaida who was the evil version of Kikaider. a hero created by Shotaro Ishimori and played by Ban Daisuke in a 1970's Japanese television series. Ishimori got his inspiration from Osamu Tezuka's "Astro Boy" and "Astro Boy" is partly based on Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein". We can say that Frankenstein is based, at least in part, on Mary Shelley's own life. Therefore, we can say that Mary Shelley is the historical Darth Vader.

Now, I myself, have suggested that the Jesus story is based partly on fictional stories about John the Baptist and partly on a play reflecting the life experiences of a Jewish high priest's daughter named Mary. So, in some sense, I would have to say that this Mary is the historical Jesus and I hold an historical Jesus position.

However, when we expand the meaning of historical in this way, we erase the primary distinction between non-fiction and fiction.

This kind of erasure changes all mythology into history and can as you noted be considered a sinister case of Euhemerism.

This erasing of the line between myth and history was strong in the second century. Note the Jewish-Christian Philosopher Melito’s “A Discourse Which Was in the Presence of Antoninus Cæsar” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.ii.html

It seems to me that we really need to distinguish between those who believe that Jesus was a man who lived and had followers for a few years around 30 C.E. and was crucified, and those who believe that the Gospels are constructed from a number of different sources, mainly fictional with a few references pointing to stories about historical characters. It seems to me that the name for the later position should be "Mythical Jesus."

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Klaus, raising this thread from the dead, gives me a chance to revise my list a bit. The writers over the last century that I have found who held that the New Testament Jesus is a myth now stands at 65. I have taken off the names of a couple of writers whose positions were ambiguous and added several others.

First List: Living writers with good academic credentials (although possibly not from relevant fields) who take the Jesus Myth position seriously:

1) G.A.Wells, 2) Robert M. Price, 3) Thompson, 4) Timothy Freke, 5) Peter Gandy, 6) Herman Detering, 7) Alvar Ellegard, 8) Darrell Doughty, 9) Frank Zindler, 10) Michael Turton, 11) Luigi Cascioli, 12) Michel Onfray, 13) Francesco Carotta, 14) Tom Harpur, 15) Hal Childs, 16), Herbert Cutner, 17) Michael O. Wise, 18) Burton Mack, 19) Jan Sammer, 20) Arthur M. Rothstein, 21) Michael Martin, 22) Herman Detering

Second List: These living writers with academic credentials that I am not sure about (but whose work may be just as important as the above) include:

1) Earl Doherty, 2) Richard Carrier, 3) Archaya S., 4) Joseph Atwill, 5) Ken Humphreys, 6) Harold Liedner, 7) Zane Winter, 8) Gary Courtney, 9) Michael Hoffman, 10) Max Rieser, 11) R.G. Price, 12) Lawrence E. Dalton, 13) Shirley Strutton Dalton

Third List: These deceased 20th century mythicists have academic credentials (although possibly not relevant fields):

1) Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, 2) John (J.M.) Robertson 3) Bertrand Russell, 4) Joseph McCabe 5) Livio C. Stecchini, 6) Thomas Whittaker, 7) John E. Remsburg, 8) Arthur Drews, 9) P. L. Couchoud, 10) John Allegro, 11) van den Bergh van Eysinga, 12) Robert Taylor, 13) Joseph Wheless, 14) Peter Jensen, 15) Gordon Rylands, 16) Guy Fau, 17) Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, 18) Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 19) John E. Remsburg, 20) Marshall J. Gauvin, 21) J.G. Jackson, 22) William Benjamin Smith, 23) Cita Rom Goel, 24) Salomon Reinach 25) Albert Bayet 26), M.F.A. Aulard 27), Prosper Alfaric, 28), J.P.J. Bolland, 29) Yosef ben-Jochannan, 30) Max Riese

If I have left out anyone, please feel free to advise me.

Warmy,

Philosopher Jay

schilling.klaus

no, a Jesus that had been thrown ad bestiam by Pilatus after having said everything as reported in the gospels would be as much a historical one as a cruciofied one, same is true for a man with a different name who did, said, and suffered everything as described in the gospels, or a Jesus crucified under Aulus Flaccus in Alexandria or Gallio in Corinth after having said and done everything as per the gospels, or one that escaped to China or to America for that matter and died at high age.

Even Ankhenaten, or Cyrus, or Sargon,
if historical and considered as the model for Jesus,
would qualify as a historical Jesus.

Klaus Schilling

PhilosopherJay

Hi Klaus,

How about a man who didn't have any followers and was named Fred. He told Pilate that he didn't have enough money to pay his taxes and Pilate slapped him. He was knocked unconcious and only revived a few hours later when his wife Mary came looking for him. Would that qualify as an historical Jesus?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

I have a book of fiction and it contains this statement: So when an author writes fiction, even if he claims a character called Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate, it is only coincidental, the characters called Jesus Christ and Pontius Pilate have no bearing at all to any Jesus Christ or Pontius Pilate, living or dead.

Now, it should be obvious that this disclaimer is missing from the NT. It would appear to me that the characters and events in the NT are fictitious. Any similarity to known persons living or dead, is co-incidental, and was intended by the author.

mountainman

Somewhere along the line we have to admit
the possibility of what is commonly known as
fraud, or more specifically the fraudulent
misrepresentation of ancient history.

The term "Myth" is not strong enough to
encompass the acts of intentional forgery.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

aa5874

When an author writes, "Once upon a time there was a man named Jesus Christ...", this can probably be regarded as myth, but when he writes, "I saw Jesus alive after he was dead for days...", we are probably now into fraud.

mountainman

So where is the inspector of police in the many hats
of the BC&H scholars? At the bottom of the too-hard
basket? Is this "too much authority to wear"?

What is the difference between BC&H and
one episode of HAWAII-FIVE-O? We dont
have the expectation of ....

"Bookem Danno".

Best wishes,


Pete Brown