Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 11-02-2011, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

Quote:

And if some maximalist decides to assert the existence of one, we know it is mere folly. However, in the case of christianity there is a vested interest and an industry to promote it. There is no vested interest in Ebion and he has been consigned to non-existence. There is no vested interest in Robin Hood and he sits on the shelf. But christianity has every boy and his dog giving their opinions as to the historical or mythical nature of Jesus.

Jesus is treated differently.

This might be so, but the question of historicity is an important matter for the historian, not just the industry behind the figure itself (whichever figure that might be). Historicity has implications, as does mythicism, towards the origins of a religion which continues today. For anthropologists, sociologists, and historians alike, having an answer to this question answers other questions, raises new concerns, and promises at least some understanding about a past which is nearly lost to us. If Gilgamesh had never existed historically, how might that information influence our data about the period of rule in which we place him? And what of Socrates? Imagine how that might dash our assertions about Plato or Xenophon and that whole period in time! What if Lycurgus turned out to be a historical figure who founded Sparta, how might such information change our way of thinking about that period and the city-state itself?

We can all do this. What if Hitler had survived the bunker (and sired progeny...)? What if Elvis decided he couldn't continue being the king and went into retirement in Hawaii? What if Lindon Johnson had ordered the hit in order to maintain an American intervention in Vietnam? All very thought provoking, but historical analysis is dubious.

(And the inclusion of Socrates here is a crock. Not only do we have reports from students but also a parody by Aristophanes. These are independent contemporary sources of known provenance.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

So in the mind of the historian, this question has vested interest; it does not matter to whom it had been applied. The job of the historian is to interpret and present to us accurately the past as they can best explain it. Otherwise whole constructs are created which might never have existed, while others are all but ignored and forgotten.

You've waylaid my remark about vested interest. Some might like to explore counter-histories or at best possible histories. It won't change their current "on the shelf" historical nature.

With the rise of more rigorous approaches to knowledge brought about by the development of science and modern research a industry has emerged giving the air of modern scholarly credence to Jesus as a historical figure. A quick look at most, if not all, historical Jesus research reveals that historicity is assumed and the scope of the research is to confirm the commitment. Little value can come out of such endeavors. They seem ultimately to be modern apologetic.

Toto · 11-03-2011, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

...

This might be so, but the question of historicity is an important matter for the historian, not just the industry behind the figure itself (whichever figure that might be). Historicity has implications, as does mythicism, towards the origins of a religion which continues today. For anthropologists, sociologists, and historians alike, having an answer to this question answers other questions, raises new concerns, and promises at least some understanding about a past which is nearly lost to us. ...

So in the mind of the historian, this question has vested interest; it does not matter to whom it had been applied. The job of the historian is to interpret and present to us accurately the past as they can best explain it. Otherwise whole constructs are created which might never have existed, while others are all but ignored and forgotten.

I think that the main interest group with an interest in the existence of a historically verifiable Jesus are modern evangelical Christians, who make the historical Jesus a big part of their recruitment effort for new converts.

For historians of Christian origins, the historical Jesus is almost irrelevant. He might be the proverbial butterfly who flapped his wings and set off a chain of events that resulted in the hurricane of a religion that later developed, but that's the most you can say.

tanya · 11-03-2011, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

But I don't believe that such a claim could be made that the scripture is evidence of a figure which never existed historically

I am making exactly that claim.

Let me write it out:
The "scripture", i.e. the New Testament, i.e. the Gospels (just one suffices, I like Mark best) represent evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical character, not an historical person.

I submit in support of my claim:

περιπατων επι τηϲ θαλαϲϲηϲ

Mark 6:48

One passage insufficient?

How about Mark 8:22-24, key words:

τυφλον ......blind

και πτυϲαϲ ειϲ τα ομματα αυ του ........and spitting into his eyes

ελεγεν βλεπω ........he said: "I can see"....

It is very clear, at least to me, that Mark represents evidence of a mythical character, capable of superhuman feats, not a human being.

To persuade me, that I err, you need only cite one passage from Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach, published in 2011, by Kanski and Bowling, which illustrates to your satisfaction, that human spittle cures blindness.

Alternatively, if you and the others on this forum who make the absurd claim that Mark represents evidence of a character who could have been a genuine human, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration of his skill level, then, you need to explain, at least to me, which passages from Mark, I should ignore, to be able to read it with a proper understanding, an understanding which accommodates your particular interpretation of Mark.

mountainman · 11-03-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

As I understand ordinary English, the product of a conspiracy (e.g. Atwill), in particular, is not a myth at all, but simply a fraud.

A fabrication - an invention.

Quote:

"Myth" should not be treated as if it were synonymous with "untrue story."

Why? One of it's synonyms is an invented story.

myth

Quote:

1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or heroor event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Chili · 11-03-2011, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

[Mark 6:48

One passage insufficient?

How about Mark 8:22-24, key words:

τυφλον ......blind

και πτυϲαϲ ειϲ τα ομματα αυ του ........and spitting into his eyes

ελεγεν βλεπω ........he said: "I can see"....

It is very clear, at least to me, that Mark represents evidence of a mythical character, capable of superhuman feats, not a human being.

To persuade me, that I err, you need only cite one passage from Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach, published in 2011, by Kanski and Bowling, which illustrates to your satisfaction, that human spittle cures blindness.

Alternatively, if you and the others on this forum who make the absurd claim that Mark represents evidence of a character who could have been a genuine human, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration of his skill level, then, you need to explain, at least to me, which passages from Mark, I should ignore, to be able to read it with a proper understanding, an understanding which accommodates your particular interpretation of Mark.

Yes but you see tanya, you maybe forget that we look with our eyes and see with our mind and here he was likely saying that a little spittle puts a sparkle in the eyes to show understanding. And I suppose, if water stands for knowledge even a little spittle can help us feel better too, don't you see?

jakejonesiv · 11-03-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

I am not arguing that Jesus existed historically or that the figure portrayed in the Gospel is historical, sans mythological content. My point, quite clearly stated over and over, is that any claims made with certainty about the figure of Jesus' historicity is going to fail any sort of investigation because like it or not, the possibility exists that a historical figure might have been at the core of the narratives. I am NOT saying that is the case, but the possibility is there.

So, feisty HJers and MJers, do you get the message yet? Tom Verenna has espoused a non-partisan evaluation of the Jesus real/myth situation. Perhaps you can now put your fangs back, rather than attack fresh meat, and either get to 1) providing conclusive evidence for history/myth or to 2) stabbing each other with your barbs.

Spin,
:innocent1:
Don't be too hasty with your defense of Tom. Just keep reading.

Jake

Solo · 11-03-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

So as Tom said initially, that the JC of the gospels is by all appearances mythical, does not in any way touch the likelihood that the myth was spun around an historical individual.

Best,
Jiri

Or two or three - multiple historical figures could have influenced the gospel writers in their storytelling re their JC figure.

It is a distinct possibility that some conflation of historical figures did in fact take place, but I think substantively there is a single historical referent in Jesus. Paul's dispute with the Jerusalem missions, and him going to Jerusalem would make little sense if there was no common referent.

Quote:

Even Earl Doherty acknowledges that much:

Quote:

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths. However, just because certain models were drawn on, this does not constitute the existence of an historical Jesus.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

The statement iasserts there were certain models that were drawn on in a construction of the myth. It does not address the possibility that there was a single historical figure which was mythologized by different people on plural models. Earl's problem evidently is that he believes that Jesus of the gospels not being "A", i.e. a figure described historically then it must be "B", a figure which is at origin mythical. It's an argument of an excluded middle.

Quote:

The problem is not related to historical figures being relevant, inspirational, for the gospel writers. The problem for the gospel JC historicists is to establish a link between a specific historical figure and the figure of the gospel JC. That is the problem here - and it's a problem that the JC historicists cannot resolve.

But you see maryhelena, most of us on the board who feel comfortably assured there was a historical figure, do not read the gospels as historical accounts. We are ok with the idea that will not likely ever know anything about the historical individual outside of what was asserted about him in the gospel. Ergo, we do not have the same problem as people who are overcomitted one way or another. We do not have to prove JC existed: in the paucity of evidence, we simply take the alternative that make most sense to us individually.

Incidentally, one can be a mythicist and have no need of a proof. I had an uncle was an atheist and he used to tease grandma by pretending he did not know who Jesus Christ was or saying to her that his crimes were too insignificant for him to feel guilty before God or suffer an hour of sermon by Patočka (her father confessor who the non-believers in the family took for a twit). Now there was a smart mythicist ! No danger of him ever knowing too much about Jesus and thus running the risk of conversion ! Look what happened to G.A. Wells !

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena · 11-03-2011, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

Quote:

Originally Posted by mayhelena

Well put, Tom. There is just simply no good evidence to argue that the figure of the gospel narratives, did not originate as post-mortem lionizing and mythologizing of a historical person.

I didn't say that. I said that the possibility exists that this was the case. Please be careful to not stretch out my meaning any more than what it is.

And nor did I write the above - you are quoting Solo not me.........

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

That a historical figure was relevant to the gospel writers is indeed possible. The problem for the JC historicists relates to linking the gospel JC to such a figure.

But there is a relationship if this possibility turns out to be true. Even if it is a fragile relationship, even if only the subtle remains of the tropes themselves are all that is left of this historical figure, linking the two is not at all a stretch. It might be a fragile position, but that doesn't make it untenable.

Linking the gospel JC figure to a specific historical figure needs evidence - which you, or the historicists, do not have.

Quote:

You are putting across the possibility that a real figure is behind, underneath, the gospel JC figure. I am coming back at you and saying it’s impossible, even if such a carpenter from Nazareth, or wherever, was crucified under Pilate, to equate such a figure with the gospel JC. Even if there was independent historical evidence that a carpenter from Nazareth, named Jesus, was crucified under Pilate - there is no way to equate such a figure with the gospel JC.

You can say what you'd like, but you would still be wrong. This is simply how history was recorded in the past. If there had been a historical Apollonius, linking such a figure with the figure portrayed in Philostratus' biography would be acceptable. Some might argue that perhaps nothing in the narrative is viably accurate, but it is not at all wrong to link the two. Your argument makes no sense. In fact your whole position is a special plea.

Same to you Tom, you can say what you’d like - and still be wrong. ....Again, linking the two - linking a specific historical figure to the gospel JC, requires evidence. You, or the historicists, don’t have any evidence.

Quote:

Or two or three - multiple historical figures could have influenced the gospel writers in their storytelling re their JC figure.

That also is a possibility. If that were indeed the case, that would have implications. Those implications would shatter the core of mythicism--that is that a figure of Jesus had never existed historically. If even one figure of Jesus existed in some historical context, the position laid out here crumbles. There is no way to make any sort of determination about this question; it is something that, for now, has to remain open (until someone takes the charge and publishes something on it).

Not at all. There is nothing in the mythicist position - mythicist position being that the gospel JC is not a historical figure - that denies that historical figures were relevant to the development of the gospel JC figure. Look back at that quote from Earl Doherty in my earlier post. Let me repeat this - mythicism does not deny that a historical figure could have been relevant, inspirational, to the gospel writers. Mythicism denies that the gospel JC figure was a historical figure. Apples and oranges here. Don’t fall into the trap of confining mythicism to an anti-historical premise. Mythicism is a premise that denies the historicity of the gospel figure of JC. It does not deny that historical figures could have been relevant, inspirational, to the gospel writers.

maryhelena · 11-03-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

So as Tom said initially, that the JC of the gospels is by all appearances mythical, does not in any way touch the likelihood that the myth was spun around an historical individual.

Best,
Jiri

Or two or three - multiple historical figures could have influenced the gospel writers in their storytelling re their JC figure.

It is a distinct possibility that some conflation of historical figures did in fact take place, but I think substantively there is a single historical referent in Jesus. Paul's dispute with the Jerusalem missions, and him going to Jerusalem would make little sense if there was no common referent.

Quote:

Even Earl Doherty acknowledges that much:

Quote:

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths. However, just because certain models were drawn on, this does not constitute the existence of an historical Jesus.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

The statement iasserts there were certain models that were drawn on in a construction of the myth. It does not address the possibility that there was a single historical figure which was mythologized by different people on plural models. Earl's problem evidently is that he believes that Jesus of the gospels not being "A", i.e. a figure described historically then it must be "B", a figure which is at origin mythical. It's an argument of an excluded middle.

And I have not used Earl's statement to suggest a 'single historical figure that was mythologized'. Broad brush strokes here. History - as in historical figures - plural - not one single historical figure - contributed to the creation of the gospel many faceted JC figure.

Quote:

The problem is not related to historical figures being relevant, inspirational, for the gospel writers. The problem for the gospel JC historicists is to establish a link between a specific historical figure and the figure of the gospel JC. That is the problem here - and it's a problem that the JC historicists cannot resolve.

But you see maryhelena, most of us on the board who feel comfortably assured there was a historical figure, do not read the gospels as historical accounts. We are ok with the idea that will not likely ever know anything about the historical individual outside of what was asserted about him in the gospel. Ergo, we do not have the same problem as people who are overcomitted one way or another. We do not have to prove JC existed: in the paucity of evidence, we simply take the alternative that make most sense to us individually.

Ok - if fence sitting suits one - so be it....

Quote:

Incidentally, one can be a mythicist and have no need of a proof. I had an uncle was an atheist and he used to tease grandma by pretending he did not know who Jesus Christ was or saying to her that his crimes were too insignificant for him to feel guilty before God or suffer an hour of sermon by Patočka (her father confessor who the non-believers in the family took for a twit). Now there was a smart mythicist ! No danger of him ever knowing too much about Jesus and thus running the risk of conversion ! Look what happened to G.A. Wells !

Best,
Jiri

I think Wells has much to offer the historicist/ahistoricist debate.....

Stringbean · 11-03-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Maybe it's time to have a "Jesus Myth School" - it's more than a theory, it's several different theories - some overlapping, some competing.

That is why I prefer "ahistoricism" to "mythicism" in debates about Jesus' historicity. Whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person is one question, which can be answered (probabilistically) yes or no, and "If not, then what was he?" is another, to which "He was a myth" is only one of indefinitely many possible answers. As I understand ordinary English, the product of a conspiracy (e.g. Atwill), in particular, is not a myth at all, but simply a fraud.

"Myth" should not be treated as if it were synonymous with "untrue story."

And just how else do you treat it?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.