Attonitus

Sorry, but do I believe that we are not speaking of the same thing, or does somebody it sustains that Jackie Robinson has never existed?

chapka

Well, there's Moses and Abraham--as far as I know they never really existed in anything like their current form. Also Betsy Ross, King Arthur, and any number of Catholic saints.

And I do think that the examples I gave are parallels. Myths about events are more common than those about persons, but I think the methods of formation and perpetuation are the same. They still represent a myth that has become a part of history.

It could be a language issue--in English "myth" as a noun doesn't generally refer to a person, but to a story. What's commonly called the "Jesus Myth" story would in vernacular English more commonly called the "Mythical Jesus" theory.

spinoza

King Arthur and Robin Hood come to mind as something like what I think you are trying to address (oops, Chapka beat me to King Arthur). Beowulf might be such a person about whom myth/history are unclear. The characters of the Trojan war might be others. The existence of Homer himself is debatable. Gilgamesh? Saints, such as Patrick, Columba or Brendan? (oops, Chapka beat me again -- I should learn to read!) The Roman kings?

spin

No. There is no historical analysis on the subject.



??

Good.

I don't know what criteria you can use to make one preferable to the other.

No. He's committed.


spin

spin

The reason why I mentioned Ebion earlier was because he was wholely a xian invention. I don't think any scholar would want to redeem him. There are different forces operating behind the historical attempts to redeem Jesus for history.


spin

rlogan

"Facts o comments"

means do you have facts on your side, or are you merely spouting off your opinion.

for example, nobody doubts the Didache. Primarily due to the date written in invisible ink on the top left of page 1. But I think too the irrefutable references to external events. Um, er - ah I'd put it safely conservatively at 44.

Therefore I'd also have to put Mark at the latest 38-39.

Anyone disagreeing with that is a foaming at the mouth myth hooligan.

Attonitus

Yes, I remember! You know Q?. A sayings source with sayings attributed to an historical Jesus. Hence, while not biographical, it is evidence to the historical existence of Jesus in 40 CE (certainly not in 38-39)

I believe to remember that Dale Allison I publish something similar a while ago...

Regards,

Attonitus

I agree with you

Regards,

Amaleq13

Unless it originally started out as a collection of unattributed sayings that were later attributed to "Jesus" along with other elaborations.

spin

It means that you cannot make a special plea for the probable historicity of Jesus without any historical documents.

And I don't think any of rlogan's comments in his last letter were serious. He says that "nobody doubts the Didache" followed by an amusing comment about the date written invisible ink on page 1. Which manuscript was that rlogan, old buddy?


spin