Rick Sumner

What, exactly, do you think is implied, and why?

gurugeorge

I'm sure dog-on will respond, but I'd like to chip in. You said:-

Rick, this is all quite true, you are lucidly making a historiographical (?) point, and I agree with it, but what's ironic is that you seem to be taking for granted in your exposition that there was this Christ fellow who was the human leader of the movement, and that it's that fellow we are supposed to be finding out about, in our (ideal) investigation. There's a presumption that there was a human being there, and that the Christ entity wasn't originally a mythical entity, an entity "seen" in visionary experience, et multae ceterae. You seem to be apriori shutting out the obvious (on the face of it) possibility that the true founders were people who merely talked about a Christ entity, rather than had known a living human being of that name.

Why obvious on the face of it? On the face of the fact that the earliest records speak of an entity that could easily be purely mythological, with no more concrete earthly components to his biography than you'd find in any other myth. That's what the AFS buys us: that plausibility. You can't shut it out apriori, you have to look into it along with the possibility that there was a human being (along with a few other contenders that aren't mythicist, the kinds Toto reminds us of).

See, if the first records had been the gospels, then the HJ idea would be on much stronger ground - you have what looks like the story of an entity that (whatever else He might have been in the way of divinity, in the eyes of the writers) is at least colorably a human being. But no, the earliest records speak of an entity much sketchier and more highfalutin', an entity that could be purely mythological, visionary, etc. (and in fact we know for a fact - granted the validity of the bulk of the scholarship - that for "Paul" at least, Christ was purely visionary; compare and contrast, we do NOT know for a fact that what the Jerusalem people "saw" was a resurrected - however that might be construed - human being whom they had known personally).

And "Paul" is a more readily identifiable founder (along with some sort of Jerusalem sect). We have his own words - or, at the very least, some of the words we have purporting to be by "Paul" were by someone who did a lot to spread a minor cult, and who was considered important enough to include in a canon, the general tenor of which is sometimes at cross-purposes with some of the things this identifiable founder said (the Pastorals are a clear attempt to "bring Paul in line" in some sense).

This is another clue: that "Paul", this nobody whose ministry was based on nothing other than mere visionary experience, and in whose writings there are glimmerings of a proto-Gnosticism that sits uncomfortably with the writings that surround it, for some reason had to be included in the canon of a sect that supposedly boasted bishops whose lineage went back to people who had eyeballed Christ. Why on earth would such a proud lineage need to give the writings of this merely visionary punk any prominent place at all in their canon?

Rick Sumner

Not at all my intention, which I thought I made clear in my subsequent clarification to dog-on. I did note, after all, that the Christian record can tell us if Paul, or someone else, invented the movement. The record should be able to tell us if it's a mythic origin, or anything else of that nature. The inclusion of a specific figure was a response to the rather silly, though oft repeated, Santa Claus analogy, and to refute the idea that we can't accept a source if it's biased, indeed committed, to its subject matter. We deal with bad sources all the time. We don't know exactly what happened less than 50 years ago, that doesn't mean that nothing happened, and it doesn't mean we can't piece anything together from those spotty sources. We might not acquire certainties, we acquire a basic hypothesis.

The proviso "if" should have made it clear that it was a hypothetical postulate. The point had nothing to do with the presence or absence of an historical Jesus. It had to do with the question of challenges when dealing with the New Testament texts. To be sure there are some challenges that are unique. Bias and inconsistency are not among them.

And if you think I've "taken [anything] for granted" I can only assume you're new here. To be sure there are those who presume historicity before they begin. The amount of time I've spent engaging the mythicist hypothesis should preclude my inclusion in that group. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, it is it best disingenuous to assert that they are the product of "taking [anything] for granted."

The analogy to Charles Manson works just as well either way. For while there is a real Charles Manson, there is no real Helter Skelter, and we can apply it to that just as well to make the same point.

So while the elaboration is nice, it is still what I said it was. Namely chasing a pet theory that isn't relevant to the matter at hand (and, despite dog-on, isn't Doherty's theory either, except in the grossest oversimplification that ignores almost half his book). The point I am making is, as you note, historiographic, it's a question of methodologies, of treating sources. The point is ultimately epistemic, and applies equally to the historicist and the mythicist. Nobody gets to dismiss sources based on convenience, or on such trifling grounds as challenges that are ubiquitous across most historical endeavours.

spamandham

Can you explain why you find analogies to Santa silly?

avi

Thank you for asking Rick on our behalf. I don't know what Rick will reply, but I suppose his answer will be that "Santa" is an obvious myth, whereas, a human born of a virgin, conceived by a ghost, omnipotent yet compelled by mere mortals to suffer a humiliating execution, a man perfect because he is a god, therefore able to walk on water, raise the dead, and restore vision to the blind, but still possessing sin of magnitude sufficient to warrant immersion in water to be "born again", a man/god who practices Judaism, serving as a rabbi, but who asks his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood, is clearly not a mythical person/god.

Rick Sumner

Because they're supposed to be silly analogies. It's the entire point of them, and the reason the comparison to Santa Claus is made when the intent is to trivialize or casually dismiss, but we get analogies to King Arthur, or to Joan of Arc in the midst of more sombre discussion.

As for the specific analogy in this instance--avi's efforts to trivialize our sources, by comparing the New Testament to "presents under the tree"--I explained why that's silly, and indeed you agreed me.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

Certainly if they're supposed to be silly, then they probably are. But I don't think that's generally the case.

Santa makes a nice comparison, because he's a highly legendary figure that really does have a known historical core (ignoring for now arguments that the Catholic church invented the history of Nicholas of Smirna). Further, pre-existing mythology was attached to him. The analogy to Jesus is fitting.

Suppose that we did not know anything about the historical St. Nicholas, but had only the legends to go on. We might conclude that the historical Santa lived in the far North, that he was a toymaker by trade, that he rode around on Christmas in a reindeer drawn sleigh handing out free toys to poor children, and that he lived circa the 17th century. These are after all what the prima facie evidence suggest. Yet we'd be dead wrong on all counts.

There simply is no way to extract any real history about Nicholas of Smirna from the Santa legends. Yet, when we find other highly legendary characters for which no real history is known, we pretend that this approach is valid. It is not.

Certainly there is some kind of threshold of legend below which it's reasonable to conclude a character is basically historical (minus the obvious mythical aspects), such as say Julius Caesar. And there is some threshold above which it is no longer reasonable to make such an assumption, such as the Tooth Fairy.

But in between is a big gray area where we really just don't know. Jesus is in that gray area, IMHO, perhaps closer to Santa than to Julius Caesar. King Arthur, in his legends, is less mythicized than Jesus, and most historians make no claim as to the historicity of Arthur.

I believe you may be confusing me with another poster on this point.

Rick Sumner

I'd be interested in seeing a collection of such allusions that do not culminate with casual dismissal. Avi's comparison of our sources with presents under a tree being a perfect example.

It's a reductio ad absurdum. Avi was employing it, aa employs it all the time, it is employed with great frequency. The question is whether or not the progression has any validity to it. The case you make below might measure up. The case avi was presenting does not. Our sources analog to "presents under a tree" about as well as a cart analogs to a spaceship, since both are transportation.

I think you might be mistaken on this point. You would need to suggest that we only had a specific kind of "Santa" legend floating about. Perhaps most specifically, the one that circulates in America.

It depends on the character. It's equally invalid to suggest that there is no validity to the approach at all.

Julius Caesar is another terrible example, though one provided by historicists rather than mythicists. The better example, at least for the historicist, is Augustus, and I suspect it's a general ignorance of Roman history that results in the wrong choice. Julius is the better known so it as assumed (much as you are doing here) that he is the most mythologized. He is not.

Indeed, if we only had certain stories of Augustus floating about, and everything else had been destroyed (your hypothetical Santa situation), we would come up with a much different Augustus. The Augustus of Myth is not the Augustus of history.

You might want to read up a bit more on King Arthur then, I suppose. Indeed, the first words on the Wikipedia entry on the historical basis for Arthur are: "The historical basis of King Arthur is a source of considerable debate among historians."

We shouldn't offer commentary if we aren't sure. Otherwise we end up making statements that are ill-supported by the evidence. If you aren't sure if historians debate the "historical Arthur" or not you would be better off just to say so.

And "more" or "less" mythicized, when you're dealing with texts a millenium apart, is ridiculous. Myth had changed. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Indeed I was, apologies. I'll welcome any response to my criticism then. I provided an example of the necessity to rely on poor, unsubstantiated and biased sources.

avi

I understand your irritation, but, at the risk of further provoking you, I think I ought to try and clarify my previous post.

I do believe that the "sources" are muddled, corrupted, and filled with inconsistencies. I do believe that if any comparably illogical and inconsistent documents were presented in any other field of human endeavor--science, engineering, law, medicine, education, business, entertainment or commerce, those presenting this "evidence" would be dismissed at once, denounced as charlatans.

However, notwithstanding my own lack of enthusiasm for the oldest extant biblical sources, I do believe that they offer some kind of utility, and certainly provide a romantic link to the sufferings of past martyrs--those who dared to challenge the prevailing authorities wielding these "sources" with the left hand, as the right hand swung the axe on the outstretched neck of the non-believer.

The analogy that I evidently failed to communicate was not between the presents under the tree and the "sources", but with the child's acceptance of those shiny presents under the tree as representing proof positive of the existence of an entity which we know to be mythical, just as the congregations of true believers, in any religion, accept (usually uncritically) various authoritative documents as legitimate "proof" of the doctrines espoused.

To me, it is extraordinarily facile, I would say, childish, to accept, uncritically, the notion that Matthew 1:18 represents a fact. It is obviously nonsense. Women are not impregnated by ghosts. People do not rise from the dead. No mammal can ambulate on water.

I know of no Jew, living or dead, who would accept the hypothesis that a Jewish rabbi would propose consumption of human flesh and blood as part of some sort of ceremony honoring the Jewish God.

Why would an omnipotent god permit himself/herself to be tortured, the object of ridicule and hatred, by mere, wretched humans? What is such an omnipotent creature teaching us, in that exercise? The lesson I take away from that example, is that the "god" is mythical--> not a god at all, but merely a simple human, like the rest of us.

Why should a perfect creature, be he/she god or human, require immersion in water, to gain purity? The creature is already perfect....Makes absolutely no sense, unless one is living in a desert, with water as a scarce commodity, the source of friction, and battles, and warfare.

The mythical character of Jesus, in other words, for me, perhaps not for Doherty, (I must await receipt of his book, probably this time next week,) does not depend on some supposed integrity of "original" sources, none of which exist, for any religion, save the Mormons.

For me, the mythical character of Christianity lies in its bald acceptance of clearly supersitious nonsense, no different, from my perspective, than the child's acceptance of the fictional Santa Claus. The Christian believer's precious "sources" are as meaningless to me, as the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita, in attempting to establish reality. Unlike those shiny, new presents under the Christmas tree, the "original sources", in any religion, are not clean, clear, or unambiguous. It is precisely because the sources for all these religions are so distorted, that one must invoke "faith" as justification for belief. Faith provides the cement that binds the religious practice, for the "sources" quite simply, lack adhesiveness.

avi

Rick Sumner

I suspect you are confusing conviction with irritation, but that's neither here nor there. I'm also unclear as to whether or not you've mistaken me for a Christian, though it seems you may have.

Your comment about "shiny presents" was in response to a specific suggestion, namely, that the historicity of Jesus stands or falls on the New Testament. Either the NT will show him to mythical, or the NT will show him to to be historical. At the very least it provides the basis for our argumentation. It had nothing to do with what any "true believer" thought of anything, and I certainly indicated nothing about my conviction for (or for that matter against) such "true belief," whatever that may mean to you.

Why you think Doherty (or anyone else, for that matter) demands "integrity" to the sources is beyond me. That sources lack that integrity was entirely the point.

So while the remainder of your post, snipped for brevity, is generous offering of your own convictions, it does nothing to address what was actually said, or the actual context of it.