Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 12-28-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I have not a person but a type of person, more or less in the way Toto mentioned. The primary suspects would be religious figures like Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Mohamed. The reason for this is that religions have there attendant true believers, who have much more of a stake in the history of their heroes than is the case with non-religious figures. Compare e.g. the uproar that would result if a well respected person would tomorrow publish a very convincing MJ article, with the uproar that would follow a similar article for say King Arthur. For that reason religious figures who are claimed as historical should be treated with more suspicion than others. Which of course doesn't mean that they can't be historical, just that they should get more intense scrutiny.

Non religious cultural icons would run a close second. Here it should be remembered that historicity is not a black and white thing: a person may have been historic, but (some of) his actions and attributes may not have been. Maybe Washington is an example of this?

A final note about those religious candidates for non-historicity. I'm not sure we would find all that many. It seems to me that Christianity and Islam are the only two religions for whom the actual historicity of their idols is a defining matter--going by Robert Price's Of Myth and Men it would seem that Buddhism doesn't really see the Buddha as a historic person. But perhaps I have that wrong?

Gerard Stafleu

Thank you, Gerard. This is exactly what I am after. You listed Moses, Buddha, and Mohammed. How do you see the evidence for or against the historicity of these figures compared to that for or against Jesus? Mohammed seems secure, right? Moses far more shadowy than he. And Buddha, well, I admit I do not know as much about the Buddha as I do about the others.

Ben.

nogods4me · 12-29-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This question has come up before (in fact, it keeps resurfacing, but I'm not going to bother searching for the old threads). I don't see that there would be any change in the question about most historical figures. But the bottom line is, nobody cares if historians decide that Socrates never lived. It would just be an academic exercise.

Indeed. I once had a believer in jesus ask me if I could 100% prove that Napoleon existed. I told him it was no big deal as I had never seen a "What Would Napoleon Do?" bumper sticker. Most historical figures from the time of jesus and before could be re-defined as fictional with little or no trouble except within the academic communities that study them. Just like the changing of the planetary status of pluto, it's mostly an academic excercise.

Steven Carr · 12-29-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

My question is this: Now that Jesus has been proven a myth, what other figures commonly deemed historical at this moment in time might be next? Fill in my tight critical methodology above with whatever method you think would work best to cast historicity in grave doubt; with that same methodology (whatever it may be), what figures (if any) from the pages of history would be in danger of losing their present historical status?

Abraham, Moses, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve, Daniel...

Ben C Smith · 12-29-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

Now that Jesus has been proven a myth, what other figures commonly deemed historical at this moment in time might be next?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Abraham, Moses, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve, Daniel...

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant commonly deemed historical at this moment in time within the scholarly community.

Thanks.

Ben.

Toto · 12-29-2006, 10:46 AM

Can you name another possibly historical figure whose existence is questioned?

The only one I can think of is Confucius. A current theory is that Confucius was a contruct of Jesuit missionaries, who assumed that if there was a collection of sayings, there must have been someone behind them.

Ben C Smith · 12-29-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Can you name another possibly historical figure whose existence is questioned?

The only one I can think of is Confucius. A current theory is that Confucius was a contruct of Jesuit missionaries, who assumed that if there was a collection of sayings, there must have been someone behind them.

Well, you offered Socrates, though the idea that he is fictional seems more fringe to me.

But the exercise is really about finding someone about whom there is not much current mainstream debate, but whose historicity the methods used against that of Jesus would tend to cast into doubt. If there is no one, that is, if Jesus is the only one, I would like to hear that, too.

But I am wondering, for example, if the methods used against the historicity of Jesus could also impeach figures known only from one or two sources for whom there is no hard archaeological evidence, or figures referred to only two or more generations after their supposed lifetimes, or figures referred to only by partisans for a while.

Ben.

Doug Shaver · 12-29-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Mohammed seems secure, right?

I did some cursory googling on him a few years ago. I wouldn't say that, though he's not as doubtful as Jesus.

Chris Weimer · 12-29-2006, 01:27 PM

Siddhartha Gautama, Lao-Zi, Kongfu-zi, Socrates, King Arthur, Homer, the list can go on and on and on.

Chris Weimer · 12-29-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This question has come up before (in fact, it keeps resurfacing, but I'm not going to bother searching for the old threads). I don't see that there would be any change in the question about most historical figures. But the bottom line is, nobody cares if historians decide that Socrates never lived. It would just be an academic exercise.

I'm sorry that you seem to have a personal interest in the existence of Jesus. For many of us, our interest in the existence of, say, Socrates, is the same as the existence of Jesus. They're both academic exercises.

But at least now we know we're the biases lie.

Toto · 12-29-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I'm sorry that you seem to have a personal interest in the existence of Jesus.

I'm not sure how you read this into my post.

I have no particular personal need for Jesus to exist or not exist. But many people in this society seem to, and the question of Jesus' existence generates much more heat that a challenge to the existence of Socrates would.

Quote:

For many of us, our interest in the existence of, say, Socrates, is the same as the existence of Jesus. They're both academic exercises.

But at least now we know we're the biases lie.

?

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

12-29-2006, 10:46 AM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Can you name another possibly historical figure whose existence is questioned? The only one I can think of is Confucius. A current theory is that Confucius was a contruct of Jesuit missionaries, who assumed that if there was a collection of sayings, there must have been someone behind them.

12-29-2006, 01:27 PM	#18
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Siddhartha Gautama, Lao-Zi, Kongfu-zi, Socrates, King Arthur, Homer, the list can go on and on and on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.