DNAReplicator

I actually think the Popeye analogy is not that bad a model for debate here. According to "Bud" Sagendorf's (1979) - "POPEYE: The First Fifty Years" (or via: amazon.co.uk), Popeye is based on the character of Frank "Rocky" Fiegel. Apparently he was a local tough guy known to Elzie Segar (author of Popeye), who was small and wiry, and who smoked a pipe. It is also claimed that local legends built up about his fighting prowess. The characters of Wimpy and Olive Oyl are also claimed to have been derived from real people (William Schuchert and Dora Paskel). Apparently William Schuchert was an obese man with a liking for Hamburgers. Dora Paskel was tall and lanky, and dressed like the Olive Oyl character.

So...was Popeye historical?

In the end it comes down to the definition of ‘historical’. There is a case here that your criteria “that there has to be some correlation of biographical data between the real person and the fictional character” has been met, and one could therefore claim that Popeye is indeed a historical character.

However, following a common mythicist line of reasoning, Popeye must be fictional, on the basis that none of the events described in the cartoons really happened, and there is no such thing as ‘magic spinach’.

Of course, in the case of Popeye nobody really gives a damn if he was real or not, so claims of historicity are no more than mildly interesting and momentarily diverting. The real difference though is that pointing out that the Popeye character maybe based on a real person does not cause people to think you are claiming that spinach has special powers, or that you therefore view the cartoons as a historical record.

Hopefully the analogy is obvious....

jakejonesiv

That is an interesting question. Ot to rephrase it slightly, who came first, the proto-orthodox or the heretics?

I have a problem with taking the proto-orthodox at their word. Their version of Christian history is entirely too self-serving to be anything other than propaganda. They wrote that they were the original Christians everywhere, and there was never any “heresy” without orthodoxy existing first, from which the heretics foolishly departed. They present Christian history as thoroughly literalist. But they knew, as we do, that it was a lie. The great majority of Christians, even unto the time of Polycarp were gnostics.

Even Tertullian bemoaned that the entire universe was filled up with gnostics. Gnostics were “the great majority” of Christians.

"...forsaking the vain and empty talking and the error of the great masses..." Polycarp 2:1.

"Everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist . . . and whoever perverts the words of the Lord . . . and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan. Therefore let us abandon the foolishness of the great majority." Polycarp 7:1-2.

As Walter Bauer observed in "Othodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity," pages 172-173, Christianity was synonymous with heresy in many regions until nearly the 3rd century. In vast areas including Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, the first Christians we know of are all Gnostics. “However, east of Phrygian Hierapolis we could hardly discern any traces of orthodoxy. Christianity and heresy were essentially synonymous here.” Page 229.

W.Bauer wrote in the 1930’s, but a similar view is presented in _Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew_, by Bart. D. Ehrman

Justin (Apol. 1:26) stated that Marcionites were found all over the Roman Empire. In some areas, Ebionite Christianity predominated; in others Adoptionist. Even in areas that were thought to be firmly orthodox, we
find views later deemed heretical coexisted within the same communities. Valentinus came very near to being appointed a Bishop in Rome, and marcio was accepted for a time before being rejected with his money. This indicates that until we approach the middle of the second century, the lines between orthodoxy and heresy had not hardened.

This widely diversified Christianity itself merged at the edges on one side into non-Christian Jewish apocalyptic beliefs (Similtudes of Enoch, etc.), and on the other side into decidedly non-Christian Gnostic redeemers (Derdekas, Seth, etc) as documented in the Nag Hamadi library discovered in December 1945. There are really no clear dividing lines. Earliest Christianity was part of an overarching movement of messianic expectations, Gnostic redeemers, seething salvation sects and mystery religions. The proto-orthodox, finally won political power under Constantine in the fourth century and used that power to suppress all competitors whether pagans or Christianity of an esoteric nature. And as the winners, they rewrote history to cover up the disharmonious nature of Christian origins.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

PhilosopherJay

Hi DNAReplicator,

I would define a trivially historical character as a fictional character whose author/s has/have borrowed some minor characteristics from actual historical persons.

I would say that Popeye is an excellent example of a trivially historical character. The look of Popeye and brawling reputation of Popeye is borrowed from Frank Rocky Fiegel, an historical person, but importantly, the stories of the cartoon Popeye are not based on anything that happened to Fiegel.

It would, of course, be bizarre and confusing to include the character of Popeye as an historical person. He remains a fictional or literary character while being a trivially historical character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Once you claim a character is fictional then is just contradictory to still try to attempt to make the fiction character historical.

All similarities between fictional characters and real characters are coincidental.

This is a disclaimer in a novel.

As you admit your claim is rather confusing but also contradictory.

aa5874

What!????!!!! So how did you suspicion arise? From your imagination?

Doug Shaver

Thank you very much for that information. This is the first I've heard about any of it. It is very interesting . . . and, I agree, quite relevant to this discussion.

The correlation I had in mind was the kind there is between Shakespeare's Macbeth and a certain king of Scotland. The real king, as did Shakespeare's, assumed the throne after his predecessor was killed, and he was himself killed, and he was then succeeded by his predecessor's son. As in Shakespeare's play, the king was named Macbeth, his palace was at a place called Dunsinane, his predecessor was named Duncan, and the son's name was Malcolm.

That is about it for the play's factuality. The real Macbeth did not assassinate Duncan, although he was arguably responsible for Duncan's death. In the real world, there was a battle between forces led by Duncan and forces led by Macbeth, and Duncan was killed during that battle. Oh, yes, the real Macbeth also believed, though for reasons having nothing at all to do with witches' prophecies, that he had some kind of entitlement to the throne.

Obviously, it helps that in this case the names of the major characters in the fiction are the same as those of their real counterparts. But if Shakespeare had used different names and given the kingdom a fictional name, I think it would still be pretty clear, to anyone familiar with Medieval Scottish history, where he got the idea for his story.

We have a good analogy close at hand if we pretend for a moment that Romeo and Juliet was factual history. Now consider West Side Story. Even if Arthur Laurents had denied he was rewriting Romeo and Juliet, we would still know good and well that Romeo was the historical Tony and Juliet was the historical Maria, notwithstanding that West Side Story does not match, in biographical or any other detail, anything in Romeo and Juliet.

West Side Story looks almost like a counterexample to my "biographical correlation" criterion, but I don't think it is. There is an overall set of general parallels between West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet that negates the complete absence of agreement in particular details. What Tony and Maria do, the things that happen to them, and the relationships among the people who do those things, are so similar in relevant respects to what Romeo and Juliet do, the things that happen to them, and the relationships among the people who do those things, to overwhelm any conceivable argument against Tony and Maria's historicity.

I suggest that this kind of parallelism is lacking between Popeye and Frank Fiegel, and likewise between Wimpy and William Schuchert or Olive Oyl and Dora Paskel. Maybe it's only a difference in degree, but I think it's enough to constitute a difference in kind.

show_no_mercy

I would like to see NT scholars use their criteriology to reconstruct the Historical Popeye using the Popeye cartoons. It would be a good test to see how valid their methodology is.

GakuseiDon

Funny aside: Family Guy's take on Popeye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5eDC3ZEdEQ

Styrofoam

This would work as an idea if Matthew had written first. In that, there's a family from Galilee that improbably travels to Bethlehem to satisfy a prophecy for the story. But Mark wrote first, and Mark doesn't mention Bethlehem, just a man from Galilee. Since that came first, you can't use the Bethlehem story to think that the Galilee origin makes more sense as history.

It could be fiction building on history or fiction building on fiction. There's no reason to think it's fiction on history rather than fiction on fiction.

Wiploc

Take deep breaths (plus maybe a Quaalude).