J-D

Of course you may point that out. I'm sorry if you found my response unhelpful. I still think it's accurate.I'd noticed that.I accept whatever decision they make.I must respectfully decline to accept your suggestion, because extensive experience has demonstrated to me that when I try to ask clarifying questions or expand on the point at issue, the result is that aa5874 misunderstands me and becomes even more violently emphatic. If you think it's possible to get aa5874 to give clarifying answers to questions, you ask them.

tanya

This thread was going in circles from the OP.

It currently is approaching ONE thousand, not Ten thousand responses, and if it does receive another 9000 replies, we still will not make progress.

There are two possibilities:

HJ,

MJ

J-D, aside, everyone else understands to what these two acronyms refer: (historical Jesus--Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, an historical figure, and mythical Jesus--Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a real man, but rather, a fictional character.)

Then, the only issue, for which a simple chart would suffice, instead of One thousand, or ten thousand replies, is whether the gospel evidence supports the HJ interpretation, or the MJ hypothesis.

If human: where's the evidence in the gospels?

If myth: where's the evidence in the gospels?

That's it. Nothing to get excited about. I introduced Mark 1:1 in support of MJ. The author of the OP has indicated that he lacks the stamina required to offer a rebuttal of Mark 1:1. I agree with him, he clearly is tired out. Time to close up shop, and go home.

andrewcriddle

The Medicean manuscript has for Christ Christus not Chrestus. However for Christians it has Chrestiani not Christiani

Andrew Criddle

Toto

You are absolutely right on both points.

I have tried to split out any theme that might go anywhere.

Otherwise, I will let Archy have the last word.

PS - J-D - everyone who tries has that experience with aa5874. That's why most people do not respond to him.

archibald

Tanya,

Though you very maturely don't appear to have taken any personal offence, I do feel I was somewhat dismissive and possibly rudely so, so I apologize. My reasons were just a disinclination to go through stuff I have already gone through already with others, and nothing to do with any lack of anything in your post.

I have to say, I thought I had demonstrated quite clearly that the human-divine combo in Mark 1 is not unusual, simply because of the large number of other examples of people thought to have had that combination throughout history. You feel otherwize. I'm not sure why. It often (in fact arguably usually) isn't an indicator of a myth, but of a belief (usually religiously motivated) that someone has divine qualities and origins. Ditto with descriptions of a figure who did miraculous things. Where I grew up, such people were two-a-penny, so we don't even have to go back to the minds of superstitious ancients for illustration.


Before Toto closes the thread, it occurs to me to tell you why I think Jesus is a better candidate for an 'historical' figure than a mythical figure. Inverted commas to emphasize that my reasons only have to do with thinking that he was likely, IMO, to have been considered to have been real, not that he was real, since that is a different thing. But it seems to me a lot of the mythicist hypotheses aired here recently have to do with this question.

The first reason is that he does not fit the mould in one important way. When mythical figures are thought of as having walked the earth, they are far more usually placed in the dim and distant past. It's not entirely unknown that they aren't, but it's pretty rare, especially for religious figures, rare enough for it to be considered unusual when someone is described as having been around recently.

The second reason, and again it's only meant as an illustration of what people seemed to believe rather than whether they were correct to believe it, is that Jesus represents something specific, something which can't be said of many other mythical figures, but which Jesus shares with a different type of figure, the eschatological prophet. That is, he is a catalyst for something incredible that was going to happen very soon, if in fact it hadn't already started, namely....the end of the world. It seems very odd for people to think that the end of the world was actually nigh without a messiah having been believed to have arrived, since for them, a messiah was clearly supposed to come to Israel in order to signal this. We might call it a fundamentally key requirement. They appear to be religious, end-of-the-world devotees looking for actual signals, not playwrights who might want to write complicated, fictional myths or allegories or parables to entertain their literary sensibilities. Similarly, a messiah who hadn't come to earth, but simply wafted about among different non-earthly realms, or a messiah whose existence was concocted purely because it 'ought' to have already happened, do not, IMO, provide as good an explanation, or indeed a persuasive premise to trigger the fervency of the beliefs held by followers.

They might add symbolic and significant things to the figure to fill in gaps in what was known of him, to 'prove' that he really had True Messiah^TM credentials, and wasn't a charlatan like some others, but it makes no sense for them to think there hadn't actually been one in the first place. This, in fact, is the normal pattern, often repeated through history, for eschatological expectations among end-of-the-world cults, where there is almost always a template leader around whom the expectations crystallize.

Third, in combination with the first two, everybody, including the writers and all other cult members, appeared to take the existence of the guy pretty bloody seriously. There are no traces of early mythicists.

So, I am, among other things, left with the impression that people of around the time and location genuinely thought some ropey fakir had strutted his stuff in the vicinity. I believe that would normally be enough of an indicator for any objective person to seriously think he might, especially if one adheres to what would normally pass for indicators for other figures from ancient history, for whom we couldn't even say anywhere near that much. IMO, it would be inconsistent not to be willing, in all objectivity, to lean slightly towards an HJ position.

maryhelena

Some good points, archibald. Logically, it makes more sense that someone was 'there'. Scenarios re it all being an idea in the mind of someone or another - lack that plausibility element. Ideas need to connect with something in the living experience of people for the ideas to generate the type of commitment that can propel the idea forward. We might indeed all live in our own little intellectual worlds - but the real satisfaction in living comes through our connection to other people. Remove that type of human connection from the origin story of early christianity and one is left with a damp squid - a fire cracker that fails to ignite.

The gospel JC story offers that type of 'comfort' to people. They are not alone. And archibald, at the end of the day it does not really matter whether a human figure is symbolized as the gospel JC - or we prefer to see a historical figure face to face. The core of the story remains - people matter, flesh and blood matters. It's not just logic that tells us this - it's our gut reaction also.

J-D

Maybe you all think you know what you're discussing, but I am not persuaded.

At least one problem with what you call the 'HJ possibility': plainly what you mean in this context by the hypothesis 'Jesus of Nazareth was a real man' is not merely 'there was a real man who was known as Jesus and who lived in Nazareth', even though that looks like a straightforward paraphrase, so plainly your meaning is not so simple, and until the intended meaning of the statement has been articulated more clearly than that it is not possible to discuss it meaningfully.

At least one problem with what you call the 'MJ possibility': 'mythical' is not, at least in its technical usage, synonymous with 'fictional' or with 'not historical', so until the intended meaning of 'mythical' in the context of stating this possibility is articulated more clearly it is not possible to discuss the statement meaningfully.

In particular, without more specific articulation of what is meant by the two suggested possibilities, it is not clear either that they are exclusive or that they are exhaustive.

J-D

I understand why people choose not to respond to aa5874 but, as I understand it, there's no rule I'm breaking by choosing differently.

aa5874

gMark does NOT contain 1 verse.

The evidence for a MYTH can ONLY be a description. There will be no actual remnants of a Myth.

ALL the Gospels DESCRIBED Jesus as a MYTHOLOGICAL Phantom from Conception to Ascension or from his Actions.

The Gospels are EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the MJ theory.

J-D

Some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place; other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.