spin

I don't think this is correct. A discussion about what Jesus actually said is what triggered his real query, "How do we even know that there WAS a Jesus who said anything?" which I used as the thread title.

I don't concur with your reading of what Goodman is doing. Heilman is pointing to a discussion about Jesus's existence to be discussed before talking about what he actually said. Goodman is trying to diffuse Heilman's implied complaint in order to continue the discussion of what Jesus said. Goodman is content to deal with tradition/text.

(I do tend to agree with Heilman's reasoning to some extent and with your comments regarding the implications of "actually".)


spin

dog-on

As long as it stays within the realm of "meta-history", sure it does.

Of course, this argument would also hold true for the actual words of Harry Potter.

avi

yes, me too...

I intended to illustrate my frustration, and amazement by this debate:
Why should it be legitimate?
It is absolutely not legitimate, if the context of a mythical person, to discuss "this or that" concerning supposed testimony of a fictional character.

To illustrate that perspective, I supplied a few links to web sites which offer unbelievable descriptions of imaginary characters, events, or materials. I think most of the folks reading the speech of Goodman, would agree that those web sites offer nonsense, but for some reason, unknown to me, web sites addressing the equally mythical Jesus, are granted some measure of respect. Why the dual standard?

Would Goodman have defended, as earnestly, the notions of the Mormons, with their gold tablets? What is so special about the jews or christians? Nothing.

Why then does one even discuss Goodman's perspective? As far as I am concerned, his arguments are absurd. I believe that this thread emerged on the forum, not because of the merits of the debate itself, but rather because of some kind of respect for Goodman's stature in society. I find that very sad. I have absolutely no respect for Goodman. None.

REALLY???

So, then, what was Goodman's first point:
What folderol.

Given the various sources, some of which are independent of each other, regarding a person named Mohammed, it does seem legitimate to speak about what Mohammed actually said, while he was robbing the caravans....

Given the various sources, some of which are ethnically diverse, it does seem legitimate to discuss what Siddhartha actually said, as he was sleeping under the lotus tree.

Given the various newspaper accounts of that era, some of which are independent of each other, regarding the discovery and unearthing of Gold tablets in North America, it does seem reasonable to discuss the significance of the Mormon tablets.

If such inane comments were made by joe or henry or mathilda or bertha, instead of the jewish Goodman, would they still appear on this forum?

avi

Amaleq13

Yes and I note you offered no good reason to think otherwise. :huh:

Multiple independent sources referring to a figure as historical does make it reasonable to treat such a figure as historical. Pretty obvious, really. No wonder you didn't offer an actual rebuttal.

Yes, various independent sources referring to a figure as historical make it legitimate to treat the figure as historical.

I assume you noticed I explicitly set aside any question about whether this is actually true of Jesus, right?

spamandham

I think Goodman's response is reasonable, but it failed to address what I see as Heilman's underlying contention, which is that these attempts to figure out what Jesus said boil down to exercises in imagination, regardless of which of the 4 contexts Goodman lists is in play.

If we accept that the Gospels are similar to other period biographies, then there is every reason to think the Gospel authors themselves made up the quotes attributed to Jesus. It might be worthwhile to try to figure out why they attributed those things to Jesus, but trying to boil it down to what Jesus "really" said would be no different than trying to boil the quotes attributed to Tom Sawyer down to what he "really" said, assuming we did not know a priori that his was a purely fictional character.

spin

I put these letters up because I thought it would be a good starting point for a calm debate about issues we have not resolved. And things like "REALLY?" and "What folderol" aren't necessary. Questioning Goodman's given, ie "Given the various sources", is a valid response.

You didn't think this was legitimate:

it is still legitimate to talk about this or that words claimed to be his final words.

but hasn't he covered his rear noting that the "words are claimed to be..." whatever?

(We can do this discussion with less drama.)



spin

avi

Echoing Anat, permit me to introduce Paul Bunyan.
We not only have independent sources, and respected scholarship, we even have a menagerie of animals playing supporting roles. Historicity: tons of it. According to so and so, Bunyan's last words, before chopping down the big old oak tree, were....

yes, we could devote hours of time, discussing all kinds of trivia related to any number of mythical creatures, some more lovable than others.

Human creativity is underestimated.

The fact that literally a billion people believe in one myth, or another, changes nothing for me. Mythical creature's reported last words are illegitimate, regardless of the credentials of the person seeking to engage in the discussion. The problem is simple: Goodman believes that Babe the Blue Ox really did exist, and accordingly, thinks it appropriate to discuss, as if meaningful, the calculations of its methane gas production when compared with conventional oxen's production of the same digestive end product.

spin

You would have no problem, if it was your interest, in discussing the words of Sidney Carton in describing his motivations for giving up his life (or the claimed words: he is a character in "Tale of Two Cities"). The words have significance in themselves in the context that Dickens put them in. Goodman says that you can talk about Jesus's words. That's quite reasonable, whether there was a Jesus or not, in responding to Heilman's question.

What should be up for grabs I would have thought was what is entailed in "[g]iven the various sources", which covers up what he should have discussed.

Your rhetoric, with references to Bunyan and Babe, merely puts you into the camp opposed to historicity, committed against it, and apparently unwilling to talk about the matter neutrally. It was a more neutral discussion that I was hoping for when I chose this brief interchange for discussion. There is no need for guns on the table.


spin

graymouser

On-topic: Goodman asks us to consider the text given the historical impact, but doesn't seem to establish any kind of methodology or criteria for what would be authentic from a HJ if one existed. This seems to be a pretty general problem: I don't know of a solid methodology to figure out what, if anything, would have been said by the "original Jesus" in the Gospels and what was incorrectly imputed to him by later authors. You could build up any number of interesting speculative cases, but wouldn't they all be just speculation? (BTW I would consider Doherty-style mythicism one of several speculative cases that I think are interesting but not definitive.)

No Robots

I don't think this is a problem for anyone familiar with Judaism. The whole Talmud is constructed on the basis of a basically faithful record of the sayings of the rabbis.