Steven Carr

When was Snow White invented and why?

I refuse to accept Snow White was a myth until somebody explains who invented her and why.

Duvduv

NOT based on the abundance of evidence but on acceptance of claims and interpretations that cannot be proven empirically.

Toto

Go back and read it again.

You continually claim that the best explanation of the gospels is a historical person, but you haven't come close to showing that, and we can all see that the gospels do not require a historical person to explain their existence.

So the "if" is just misleading.

ApostateAbe

The "if" is meant to indicate a hypothetical scenario. Maybe I should have given it more emphasis? Your answer is in the affirmative, and I don't mean that to be embarrassing, because it is the only reasonable option. It is like saying, "If Mitt Romney is a rabid dog, then he may bite you when you get close." That statement does not entail the belief that Mitt Romney is a rabid dog! If a real person is the best explanation for the gospels, then the gospels are evidence for a real person. This is important, because many mythicists cannot seem to grasp the point that evidence (especially the gospels) containing unreliable claims can still be evidence!

PJLazy

Do I really have to go through this? You are really going to compare Snow White to Jesus? First of all, do you really consider Snow White a historical figure? Because if you don't, your last line is superfluous and doesn't move the debate one way or the other. But more importantly, whether or not Snow White is based on a real person is unimportant to almost any degree. I would like to know why it would matter. Jesus' historicity, on the other hand, is vitally important. If he was a myth, the entire Christian religion would fall apart.

Here is the problem with the when and why: we are dealing with people who are changing the very core of their religious beliefs--people who probably believed that if they're wrong, they will be eternally damned. People who are accepting the most important figure in the Jewish faith as having been here-on-earth. It would not be taken lightly because it is a huge leap of faith and a huge risk.

So for a myth to have been developed out of nothing and to catch on like it did, it would almost certainly have been created outside the lifetime of those alive during the period of Jesus because otherwise, it would be easily refuted. If Jesus died in 30, it is not reasonable to believe a myth started before 100 because the remaing ten-year-olds would be eighty. And we know that Justin Martyr is discussing Jesus by 161, but probably earlier. So at either end, you run into problems-- too early and people will not accept it because there is no proof...too late and there is too much proof too quickly. Even ignoring Josephus, you have to deal with the references of Polemny and Tacitus by 115, which means the myth would have been created, proffered, and accepted to a huge extent in a short period of time. Plus you've got a whole pantheon of Christian culture that would have had to be cleverly contrived at the same time. Paul and the Acts and the early church centers would have been invented too.

But even getting beyond this, the 'why' is incredibly puzzling. It is an extravagant hoax or deception that entails revolutionary religious doctrine. The myth creator would have purposefully set out to lie with the determination to spend months and months risking his life spreading this deception to towns all over the Levant. Towns where the Jewish elders would sit there scratching their heads wondering how the great saviour of Judaism came and went without anyone actually knowing about it. Why Josephus (if you believe his references are a complete fabrication) never mentioned Jesus. It's a mind-boggling proposition.

Just to be clear, anything short of pulling Jesus out of thin air is going to based on a real person to one extent or the other. This is the myther's dilemma.

Toto

This is where you pull the bait and switch. You have a logically correct statement, that IF the best explanation of the gospels is a historical Jesus, THEN the gospels are evidence.

But then, without actually showing that the best explanation is in fact a historical Jesus, you criticize mythicists for rejecting the gospels as evidence.

Obviously, mythicists do not agree that the best explanation of the gospels is a historical Jesus, so your criticism is off the mark.

Or are you going back to a previously refuted argument that mythicists are just arguing that the gospels cannot be used as evidence because of a few random supernatural events? I don't know anyone who makes that argument.

ApostateAbe

MrMacson thinks reliability is key, meaning: if it is not reliable, then it is not evidence. I would like you to help me talk him out of that perspective.

TedM

These two paragraphs deserve some real discussion:

Toto

Pay attention. I am not on your side.

You can do a Baysian analysis of the reliability of the evidence, but if it is absolutely unreliable, why should it count as evidence?

MrMacSon

Best explanation for what? "If" is the most common word in historical Jesus discussions ....

Information that is not reliable is of dubious evidence: something not beyond reasonable doubt is not reliable.