Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 05-01-2006, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The interesting thing is that, for the most part, historians do not reflect much on whether their figures of interest existed. The few exceptions are figures of religious stature such as Siddhartha, Confucius, and the anomalous William Tell (of cultural stature in that case, perhaps). So you will not find a book on Alexander the Great laid out like the Summa Theologica, with the proposition Whether Alexander Existed. Rather they are more concerned with what he did and what was said of him and by him, that by entering into such study they may through their research better know who he was.

I've been thinking about this.

IMO part of the issue is that in order for a debate about existence to be of any general interest the person (alleged person) must become much more significant in retrospect than appeared at the time.

Figures who were of obvious immense significance at the time, eg Alexander the Great, are usually obviously historical.

There are plenty of figures of no massive importance then or later who may not have existed (I'm choosing a church history example here as the first that comes to mind but their are examples in pagan history) There is a disagreement about whether or not Pope Marcellus allegedly in office from 306-308 ever existed or whether he is the same as Pope Marcellinus the allegedly apostate Pope 296-304, with the doubling resulting from the major discrepancies in the early accounts of the life of Marcellinus.

This debate is not all that prominent because frankly not all that many people care. Marcellus if he existed (as is IMHO probable) has never been an important figure.

The interesting debates will involve people who seemed relatively insignificant at the time but whose followers (or alleged followers) have made them in retrospect of major importance.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 05-01-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDale

Whilst I'm not an historian, I believe most historians would strongly disagree with your sentiments as you seem to implying that history is unimportant. Indeed it is a rather strange statement to read coming from someone who is a moderator of a forum entitled "Biblical Criticism & History". I can only assume that uncovering the truth means little to you.

I think that most historians these days have a proper respect for the limitations of their craft. They know that "The TRUTH" is elusive. That doesn't mean that history is not important, but it does mean that it might be foolish to base a religion on historical certainty.

Quote:

. . .

I'm assuming you're implying that those who involve themselves with the historical/mythical Jesus question are not "real" historians? Regardless of your beliefs, not knowing any "real" historians I really cannot respond to such a sentiment except to say that I am dubious of your assertion. I have great difficulty believing that there is only one historical figure whose existence has been assumed and never thoroughly questioned.

You are new here. We have had this discussion before, so forgive me if I can't get enthusiastic about this line of argument.

In fact, most of the people concerned about the actual existence of Jesus are theologians. Most of the theologians simply claim that historians accept the existence of Jesus and the question is settled and they won't talk about it.

I can't think of any historian who has looked into the question except for Ricahrd Carrier. I refer you to his discussion of Doherty's thesis, where he discusses the craft of historians in general:

Review of the Jesus Puzzle

Quote:

But you should care. If not for the sake of knowledge then at least for the sake of completeness. Indeed it seems absolutely absurd to even have an interest in religion whatsoever if one has no interest in the alleged founder of said religion. Would it make sense to write a book about modern day cults and contain nothing about said cults leaders?

Cheers, DrDale

Completeness is probably beyond anyone's grasp. Some facts are lost.

You assume that the religion was in fact founded by Jesus - a proposition that many would disagree with.

dongiovanni1976x · 05-02-2006, 01:56 PM

Evidence is empirically based so the primary evidence for determining someone’s existence would be to go “see” (evidence/videre) or hear them. If this is improbable then we must rely upon traces of there existence- i.e. empirical items such as writing, pictures or perhaps eye-witness testimony (i.e. someone who has “seen” them for themselves). Beyond this is really just “degrees of hearsay” as someone else writes about someone else who said they “saw” this or that person. Therefore we must categorize this kind of hearsay based upon how many degrees of separation there are, and what possible motives the author may have had who made the claim that such a person exists. The only way to strengthen this kind of testimony is from another author who provides an alternative account for corroboration.

TomboyMom · 05-02-2006, 03:11 PM

I don't know about historians but speaking for myself:
take Aristotle as an example. We have these books, Categories, Prior Analytics, etc. Someone wrote them. So I'm O.K. with calling that person "Aristotle", who claimed to have written them. If it later turns out his name was Joe, that doesn't make a big difference. There must have been "a person who wrote all these books." In the case of a person who did not write any books, it's more difficult. Lao Tzu would be another good example. We don't know for sure that there was such a person, but we know someone wrote the Tao Te Ching, and we may as well call him Lao Tzu.

Didymus · 05-02-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

And rightly so, since we have examples of many people well-documented who have apocrypha written about them. Is that so surprising? Do all figures who have legendary deeds ascribed to them all of a sudden become zapped out of history? I think not.

Such people wouldn't - or shouldn't - have become historical figures in the first place if they hadn't done something of note. (That would make an MJ an anomaly, of course. But he wouldn't be the only one. As you suggest, sometimes misinformation is passed along as history.)

From a historical perspective, people matter only for what they have done, not for the rich creamy goodness of their inner lives. Religion doesn't make that distinction. To Christians, Jesus was as important for who he was as for what he did. So ironclad, irrefutable proof that Jesus didn't exist would change Christianity, and thus the world.

But that's not true of secular history. The realization that Socrates didn't exist would have no appreciable effect. What he did was done; in history, impact is what counts.

Didymus

Jabu Khan · 05-03-2006, 01:11 AM

But then your stuck trying to prove a negative. The problem is trying to find every Jew who ever lectured from a hill top or claimed to heal a blindman and did something that resembles one little action of Jesus would be exhaustive. The conditions of his birth and death should never have escaped historical record and everything in between begged for scribes rather than just apostles but none of it is there for some reason. I agree there could be some value in showing that someone who wasn't miraculous was behind the Jesus story. But to me its like trying to find the true Rumplestiltskin. The way the story was written it seems evident that the church did not want it attached to any particular person. Most likely because it would invite a competing faction. I find it hard to believe that none of his followers or relatives would have tried to gain prestige with there attachment like Hallie Salassie. Espescially in those times if there was a historical connection.

Jabu Khan · 05-03-2006, 01:18 AM

Sorry to diverge tho as for the op I think its done mainly by critical examination and consensus. It varies wildly depending on the circumstances. Some figures left a wealth of records and some were fleeting parts of a destroyed culture and have to be almost accepted at face value. I think thats where intention and motiv comes into play. If those are absent its kind of accepted but not affirmed but in this case the intention and motiv has played a much bigger role in our history then the story or we would have come a lot farther socially by now I think.

darstec · 05-03-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Take your cousin and place him in in Judaea 2000 years ago. Remember, there are no newspapers, a large portion of the population are illiterate, and crucifixion was a common way of killing radicals, plenty of which we only have an odd mentioning or for some we don't have *any* evidence they existed at all.

Place the cousin back 2000 years ago and I would assume the cousin would necessarily be mythical. It is impossible for anyone today to have a cousin that lived 2000 years ago.

And I think there would be serious repercussions and a document or two about executed criminals that refused to stay dead and continued to engage with their followers in the treasonous activities for which they were crucified in the first place.

If 100 percent of the stories of the cousin are apocryphal, why maintain the cousin existed in the first place? After all I sure someone in the last hundred or so years ago could have been named Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyon but should we then conclude those characters were historical?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2006, 01:56 PM	#73
dongiovanni1976x Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: St Louis, MO Posts: 686	Evidence is empirically based so the primary evidence for determining someone’s existence would be to go “see” (evidence/videre) or hear them. If this is improbable then we must rely upon traces of there existence- i.e. empirical items such as writing, pictures or perhaps eye-witness testimony (i.e. someone who has “seen” them for themselves). Beyond this is really just “degrees of hearsay” as someone else writes about someone else who said they “saw” this or that person. Therefore we must categorize this kind of hearsay based upon how many degrees of separation there are, and what possible motives the author may have had who made the claim that such a person exists. The only way to strengthen this kind of testimony is from another author who provides an alternative account for corroboration.

05-02-2006, 03:11 PM	#74
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	I don't know about historians but speaking for myself: take Aristotle as an example. We have these books, Categories, Prior Analytics, etc. Someone wrote them. So I'm O.K. with calling that person "Aristotle", who claimed to have written them. If it later turns out his name was Joe, that doesn't make a big difference. There must have been "a person who wrote all these books." In the case of a person who did not write any books, it's more difficult. Lao Tzu would be another good example. We don't know for sure that there was such a person, but we know someone wrote the Tao Te Ching, and we may as well call him Lao Tzu.

05-03-2006, 01:11 AM	#76
Jabu Khan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads Posts: 1,308	But then your stuck trying to prove a negative. The problem is trying to find every Jew who ever lectured from a hill top or claimed to heal a blindman and did something that resembles one little action of Jesus would be exhaustive. The conditions of his birth and death should never have escaped historical record and everything in between begged for scribes rather than just apostles but none of it is there for some reason. I agree there could be some value in showing that someone who wasn't miraculous was behind the Jesus story. But to me its like trying to find the true Rumplestiltskin. The way the story was written it seems evident that the church did not want it attached to any particular person. Most likely because it would invite a competing faction. I find it hard to believe that none of his followers or relatives would have tried to gain prestige with there attachment like Hallie Salassie. Espescially in those times if there was a historical connection.

05-03-2006, 01:18 AM	#77
Jabu Khan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads Posts: 1,308	Sorry to diverge tho as for the op I think its done mainly by critical examination and consensus. It varies wildly depending on the circumstances. Some figures left a wealth of records and some were fleeting parts of a destroyed culture and have to be almost accepted at face value. I think thats where intention and motiv comes into play. If those are absent its kind of accepted but not affirmed but in this case the intention and motiv has played a much bigger role in our history then the story or we would have come a lot farther socially by now I think.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.