aa5874

gMark's Jesus cannot be simply declared a myth by one sentence of UNKNOWN origin.

You MUST use be able to COMPILE an ABUNDANCE of evidence to show Jesus was myth.

A single SECOND hand statement is grossly weak as an argument that Jesus of the NT was NOT human without a human father.

We have HUNDREDS of writings that show Jesus was myth so use them.

la70119

The solution lies not in the Annals of the Goddess of History, but in the Theology of the Letters of Paul.

Romans 12:5

Ephesians 5:23

Acts 1:11

The church is the body of Christ, Christ is the head of the Church, and the head is not with the body but rather lifted from it. THE BODY IS MISSING ITS HEAD.

So it is fitting that they should also be called Christians at Antioch.

la70119

Even though the Greek word "Christianos" appears derived from the Latin "Christianus." And the oldes MSS have "Chre'stianos" instead. And that, too, appears derived from the Latin chrestianos in Tacitus.

Steve Weiss

That's two of us in Cape Town. Without an historical Jesus, though, a huge industry would have to be shut down.

maryhelena

Not really - all they have to do is change tack - baby Jesus is really just an xmas treat - the real deal is that imaginary other world where the faithful will sing with the angels - it's not this world, this reality, that fuels Christianity - it's that other world....the spiritual world...all they need to do is go another route - same destination....:wave:

tanya

Coins?

At least on my browser, maryhelena, I see on your excellent chart, a heading labeled:

umm, maybe my browser is not identical with yours....Judge may or may not have commented on the coin issue, I didn't know, when I offered my compliments to you, for introducing coins into the argument.

Well, and maybe I am beating a dead horse, sorry if so....

a. yes, I find fault with the quotes--none of them are applicable to the correct definition of "myth".

b. WHY do you find them useful? Simply stating that they are useful is not helpful. Your elaboration on this point would be most instructive. For historical analysis to be productive, the definitions must be rigorous, and crystal clear. Your sources' quotes are fuzzy and subjective, the contrary of historical research.

c. I find your quotes explaining myth useless, for none of them address the fundamental distinction between myth and legend. Myth is always associated with supernatural attribution.

Any story, claimed as "myth" which, however, lacks a supernatural element, is by definition, NOT MYTH, but legend. That distinction is critical.

Conversely, even a simple one line sentence, can represent a myth, there is no need to have an elaborate "story", for a tiny bit of fiction to earn the title: MYTH. The sentence simply requires reference to supernatural quality.

Roger Pearse

But "History" is not a person, holds no bank accounts, gives no testimony. I really do not think that using an abstraction in this manner is helpful, whatever one thinks of the thesis.

There are several confusions in this, arising mainly out of a misunderstanding of the word "history".

Physical artefacts from antiquity such as coins and inscriptions and documentary texts are found in the archaeology. These indicate via the inscription and image on them that whoever made the artefact wished to convey some message, and it is reasonable to suppose that a coin of (e.g.) Albinus reflects that a person named Albinus existed and was issuing coins. To reach this conclusion, of course, we need to know something about coins of the period, and people of the period, otherwise we will not know the significance of the highly abbreviated inscription, nor the mug-shot. It will not, in truth, prove that Albinus existed. He could have been a god.

History consists of written accounts. A period is prehistoric when there are no written accounts surviving (or they never existed). Thus ancient Britain is prehistoric, until the Romans came in 55 BC. Most of black Africa was prehistoric until the 19th century or later. The written accounts allow us to understand the artefacts. Anyone who looks at the early volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History will understand just how inscrutable prehistoric material is, in the absence of some narrative. The same, indeed, applies to material from historic times where for some reason the historical sources are silent.

I make these points, in the idea of clarifying what we're dealing with. It won't help anyone to get confused about what history is, or is not, surely? And words, in the end, exist to help us understand things, not to use as clubs to squash things with.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

maryhelena

Obviously, history is not a person :huh:

I'm sure nobody is going to read it that way!

Yes, of course - coins are artifacts - and without some historical narrative the data on them remains ambiguous. Again, I'm sure that that is something that is pretty generally accepted.

Actually, I fail to see how what you have presented clarifies in any way the thrust of the OP. Which is - that the artifacts we do have, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, combined with the historical narratives from Philo and Josephus - are able to draw a picture of a specific historical time period. A specific time period relevant to the gospel JC story.

maryhelena

Check out post #2.

My chart deals with the Hasmonean and Herodian coins. I have made no reference to coins for Jesus............................:huh:

tanya - check out Wikipedia on myth. It's a complex subject. If you want to confine myth to a category of your own - that's OK. For myself, I find a broader approach more beneficial - especially when dealing with the NY JC story. JC is not a legend. The JC figure is purely a literary creation. However, that literary creation reflects the lives of two historical figures. The NT JC myth is a myth that reflects history.

If you want to discuss the whole topic of myth - why not start a thread? The main focus of this thread is history - the historical backdrop which facilitated the creation of the JC myth.

Steve Weiss

The NT is historical fiction and imperfectly coveys the truth of events which often are impossible to verify along with the mythical characters that appear in its pages. The further back in time one goes the more doubt arises as to the stories that are passed off as history because records become increasingly fragmentary at best and forgeries at worst. Much of history is nothing more than hearsay and propaganda.