Toto

Sherlock Holmes did not exist, although many fans think that he did.

The historicist claim is that gospel Jesus was based on historical Jesus, and that the existence and characteristics of HJ can be studied through GJ. This is where the confusion sets in, because you can't start with the myth and derive the underlying real basis.

aa5874

Once the author of Sherlock Holmes has declared that the character is fiction, whoever the fictitious character is based on is really irrelevant.

the_cave

This is an excellent point, though I wouldn't say it's completely irrelevant--it just has no bearing on the fictional nature of the character.

Though note that even here, there are nuances--James Frey, in writing A Million Little Pieces, did not declare that the James Frey who appeared in the book (which I accidentally referred to as a novel above! Or was it accidental?) was a fictional character--even though he arguably is. However, he did intend to write fictional scenes in his book, even if he didn't declare that they were fictional.

In addition, surely James Frey, in writing A Million Little Pieces, did not mean to suggest that he, James Frey, did not exist! Of course, one reason why we know James Frey exists is because we have seen him on television.

mountainman

However in the case of the canon we have a series of historical figures passing off the claim that our oldest new jesus testament codex (Sainaticus?), not our oldest Sherlock Holmes codex, is some form of authentic narrative.

Now, I'd say it would be elementary to either Holmes or Watson the trivial possibility that at least two separate crimes of fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history have been compounded since the fourth century. Neither would it require the super-detectives look very far for a number of prime suspects. We have a variety of mug shots from that epoch, plenty of gold solidi, and a number of pointing fingers. We have Scotland Yard weighing in with recently available evidence in the shape of two NT related document C14 citations, both very late. There had been more than one grey day in London. Holmes lit his pipe, pushed the pile of codices into the center of the large circular table, and contemplated what it would be like to burn them in the presence of their authors. His eyebrows slowly rose.


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

But, James Frey admitted that he had embellished certain events about himself in his book. James Frey's existence is not at all in question, he acknowledged he was the author and that the book is about himself.

However, the authors of the Gospels did not identify themselves, they never gave any introduction or preface to their Jesus stories and each author did not even acknowledge that their stories were all fundamentally fiction, even though that it is now quite obvious.

It is quite interesting to note Mark Twain's fictitious Tom Sawyer is based on THREE real life personalities, this revelation, I think, has put a real damper on the search for the HJ, since the Jesus of the NT may also have been based on MULTIPLE characters, one of which is the God of the Jews, and the other is the Holy Ghost.

The THREE are ONE.

FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST are the BASE of Jesus.

Doug Shaver

My take on that would be that the characteristics or actions have to be significant with respect to the character's identity. Sherlock Holmes was a meticulous observer of detail and a shrewd logician. So was Dr. Joseph Bell, apparently. But those characteristics, however rare in the general population, are not unique to either Holmes or Bell.

On the other hand, the title character of Shakespeare's Macbeth really existed, because a Scottish nobleman named Macbeth really did kill a Scottish king named Duncan and then succeed to the Scottish throne. Those actions uniquely identify him. There is almost no other correspondence between the historical facts and the events in the play, but that's enough. The character in the play was named Macbeth, he was king of Scotland, and he became king by killing his predecessor, whose name was Duncan. One man, and only one man, in actual history shared those characteristics, and so in that sense, and to that extent, Shakespeare's Macbeth was a real person.

aa5874

I think you have it wrong.

Shakespeare's Macbeth did NOT exist.

Shakespeare's Machbeth is fiction based partly on a real life Macbeth and was not intended to be a biography of the real Macbeth.

Doug Shaver

That just might depend on how "exist" is defined.

The definition of existence is not a discussion I have any intention of having with you.

You and I disagree on whether Shakespeare's Macbeth existed. Let's leave it at that, please.

bacht

The early epistles speak of finding Christ in scripture and revelation. For instance, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, or Daniel's "one like a son of man" could have been prototypes.

aa5874

You are on a discussion board and yet you do not want to discuss your own statements that appear to be erroneous!

The facts are that you understand that Skakespeare's Macbeth is a fictional character. You understand that the author of Macbeth did not indicate that his Macbeth was a biography of a real living Macbeth.

Fictional characters, like Macbeth or Sherlock Holmes do not live on earth, i.e, they do/did not exist at all.