Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Antipope Innocent II · 10-03-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The issue seems to be that Myres' views changed with time.
The quote above originally came from 1937

According to the website we're all borrowing from he later (1986) said

Quote:

His [Gildas's] silence is decisive in determining the historical insignificance of this enigmatic figure. It is inconceivable that Gildas, with his intense interest in the outcome of a struggle that he believed had been decisively settled in the year of his own birth, should not have mentinoed Arthur's part in it had that part been of any political consequence. The fact is that there is no contemporary or near-contemporary evidence for Arthur playing any decisive part in these events at all. No figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time. There are just enough casual references in later Welsh legend, one or two of which may go back to the seventh century, to suggest that a man with this late Roman name - Artorius - may have won repute at some ill-defined point of time and place during the struggle. But if we add anything to the bare statement that Arthur may have lived and fought the Saxons, we pass at once from history to romance

That quote and the earlier one from 1937 don't look like indications Myres "changed his mind" to me. In the 1937 quote he's emphasising that the most likely explanation of the references to an Arthur was that there was such a character. The second one is simply making the perfectly sensible point that, in the absence of any contemporary or near-contemporary evidence, we simply can't say much about Arthur other than that he existed and that he fought the Saxons.

Those two statements are both sensible and consistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

But Wood puts that caution at the end of a chapter detailing how, despite this, Arthur may well have existed and who or what he might have been. You would know that if you'd actually read his book . . . .

I have read it twice. You have your interpretation, I have mine, and I have no intention of getting into proof-texting duel.

My interpretation is based not only on the chapter in Wood's book but also a talk by him in Oxford I attended in 1997. A guy with some very definite views about Arthur asked a question from the floor and Wood made it very clear in his reply that he took a position identical to Myres' one above - it's most likely that there was an Arthur and beyond that we can't say anything much about him. Read his chapter on Arthur in In Search of the Dark Ages again and you'll find that position is entirely in keeping with what it says.

Quote:

You asked for names, and I gave you six. You have challenged two of them. How about the other four?

Okay. One of the remaining four is W.A. Cummins. Who does believe in a historical Arthur, just not a Fifth Century one. Cummins is a geologist, not a historian, and he has his own rather whacko amateur theory about a prehistoric "Arthur" who is burried at Stonehenge. So we can strike him from your list as well (both because he's not a historian and because he believes in an Arthur, just a much earlier one).

Of the others, the only one I've read is Dumville, who actually is a real historian. I haven't read the book from which the quote on your crib site is taken but I'd be very surprised if he doesn't share the same sensible position as Myres and Wood.

If you can prove otherwise, feel free. But given that three of your six "Arthur Mythicists" are nothing of the sort, I can't say I'm brimming with confidence that you can.

PS I've found two actual "Arthur Mythicists" who aren't on your list. Unfortunately for you they aren't historians but are a pair of amateur crackpots with a wild and unlikely theory that no-one in academia takes seriously. Sound familiar?

aa5874 · 10-03-2007, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Gospels seems to be propagating a god-man, Jesus the son of a Ghost. In Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, it was Cerinthus, Caprocates and others who advocated an historical Jesus, who was born as the offspring of a real man and woman.

Against Heresies, book 1.25, discussing the doctrine of Caprocates, ".... They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph and just like other men....."

On the doctrine of Cerinthus, book 1.26, "......He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation......."

The Jesus of Cerinthus and Caprocates are vastly different to that thing, the son of a Ghost, or whatever, in gMatthew or gLuke as is written in Luke 1.35, " And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Now, it should be clear that the Gospels propagated some other thing, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

It sounds to me like the two examples were supporting the gospel-view against those that claimed Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. The gospels do talk about Jesus as a god-man, but that is same the "historical" flesh and blood Jesus Justin and Irenaeus were writing about.

Thanks for the quotes.

ted

The gospels support a god-man, with "supernatural flesh and blood", this "holy thing" was described as being in direct contact with another "unholy thing", possibly his "brother", the Devil, on the pinnacle of the Temple of Jerusalem during some kind of temptation or changing his appearance to look like the Sun.

Matthew 17.1-2 "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
And was transfigured before them: His face did shine as the sun, and his rainment was white as light."

This "holy thing", the son of a Ghost, of the NT cannot be real.

TedM · 10-03-2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Can you give an example of what you mean when you say their advocacy of a historical JC is purely theological? I also don't undertand how the theological position shows how easy it is to leap from a mythological JC to a historical one..maybe the example will help.

Also, 1 Clement and the gospels appear to be advocating a historical JC. Why should they be excluded from consideration?

ted

Iraneaus, "Against Heresies", Book 3, Chapter XXII:

"Those, therefore, who allege that He took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err, [since,] in order that they may cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy [between Him and Adam]. For if the one [who sprang] from the earth had indeed formation and substance from both the hand and workmanship of God, but the other not from the hand and workmanship of God, then He who was made after the image and likeness of the former did not, in that case, preserve the analogy of man, and He must seem an inconsistent piece of work, not having wherewith He may show His wisdom. But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured."

Iraneaus would clearly present the strongest evidence for his argument. One would have expected something like, "For if he did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, then we wouldn't have [insert physical evidence here] as exhibit A, thereby proving the historicity of Christ, ladies and gentlemen of the jury".

Instead, Iraneaus shows us that he did NOT have any stronger evidence than his theological interpretation (and the quotes he plucked from Galatians and Romans, which I omitted).

It depends on what his critics were alleging. If they were alleging that Jesus only seemed like a man, then there is absolutely no exibit A that I can think of that would have sufficed. Therefore the only argument that might have any weight is the one he gave, and it is a good one. IF on the other hand his critics were alleging that Jesus had never walked the earth at all--never even appeared to be a man, then I would agree with your viewpoint.

Here is an except from book 3, chapter 11. I don't have time to try and figure this out at the moment, but I find it fascinating. What exactly were the critics alleging? It looks to me like he was not using "Savior" "Christ" and "Jesus" to mean the same thing, so we have to be careful with interpreting.

Quote:

3. But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint con-tributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(1)

Quote:

Iraneaus was preaching to his followers the truth of a HJ when the subject was still under contention, with many others believing in a MJ.

I'm not sure the above is supportive of that. Will have to get back to this later.

Quote:

As for 1 Clement - why do you think this letter advocates an HJ?

It refers to Jesus as being on earth.

ted

Doug Shaver · 10-03-2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

If you can prove otherwise, feel free. But given that three of your six "Arthur Mythicists" are nothing of the sort, I can't say I'm brimming with confidence that you can.

At this point, it would appear that I read more into the evidence than was really there. Thank you for setting me straight.

DramaQ · 10-03-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It sounds to me like the two examples were supporting the gospel-view against those that claimed Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. The gospels do talk about Jesus as a god-man, but that is same the "historical" flesh and blood Jesus Justin and Irenaeus were writing about.

If the gospel writers could see no distinction between a god-man, with godly attributes, and “history” then why should anyone be surprised that Paul may see no distinction between a pure-god being and “history”?

IOW if, to the gospel writers, god-man = history then “history” to them cannot mean the same as it does to us.

Thus, the NT writers (including Paul) COULD have been writing of “events” in real-world terms (to him "historical") that were NOT real-world.

dq

TedM · 10-03-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DramaQ

If the gospel writers could see no distinction between a god-man, with godly attributes, and “history” then why should anyone be surprised that Paul may see no distinction between a pure-god being and “history”?

That's a big if. We don't know if they KNEW Jesus had lived and interpreted his person as being god-like, or if they had made it up, or had heard 2nd hand from others who had made it up.

ted

Antipope Innocent II · 10-03-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

If you can prove otherwise, feel free. But given that three of your six "Arthur Mythicists" are nothing of the sort, I can't say I'm brimming with confidence that you can.

At this point, it would appear that I read more into the evidence than was really there. Thank you for setting me straight.

No problem. After dealing with the pig-headed recalcitrants on the "Dark Ages" and "Medieval Flat Earth" threads, it's nice to see that someone on this board has the dignity, grace and good sense to admit when they may have been mistaken.

DramaQ · 10-04-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That's a big if. We don't know if they KNEW Jesus had lived and interpreted his person as being god-like, or if they had made it up, or had heard 2nd hand from others who had made it up.

I don't know what distinction they made in their minds. I only know they don't present any in the text.

Clivedurdle · 10-04-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

3. But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint con-tributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(1)

Being a bear of very little brain, this makes complete sense if we just read what it says and stop making theological assumptions.

We have four characters and a group - the Word, the Christ, the Saviour and the Dispensational Jesus. We have Aeons doing something.

Would someone honestly look at this formulation and compare it with what is written elsewhere? Does everyone read everything with xian shaded spectacles or something?

Whatever the writer of this believed, it is not anything like modern beliefs, or even those of Nicea. I would go so far as to state it is a different belief system, that we have probably lost - unless it is all there and we have not seen it because of our xian tinted glasses.

And do we need to be very careful that the use of the word Jesus actually refers to a person and is not a word like saviour?

Clivedurdle · 10-04-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

"I'd be very careful about historical kernels if I were you" said Yair Zakovitch with a twinkle in his eye. "The whole story sounds very much like a fairy tale to me."

p 148 The Queen of Sheba, in Wood In Search of Myths and Heroes (or via: amazon.co.uk) 2005.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.