jakejonesiv

"How do you circumcize a Ghost?" Luke 2:41. You tell me now.

No Robots

A Freudian (goyish) slip for "gentle prod?"

Tom Verenna

I didn't say that. I said that the possibility exists that this was the case. Please be careful to not stretch out my meaning any more than what it is.

And:

Well, yeah. I've been saying that all along. What are you reading?

I don't know how many times I have to say it; I am not arguing that Jesus existed historically or that the figure portrayed in the Gospel is historical, sans mythological content. My point, quite clearly stated over and over, is that any claims made with certainty about the figure of Jesus' historicity is going to fail any sort of investigation because like it or not, the possibility exists that a historical figure might have been at the core of the narratives. I am NOT saying that is the case, but the possibility is there. My overall point, which surprising has been lost on all of you, is that the manner in which you are arguing for mythicism fails to take this problem into account. So instead of dealing with the challenges I've presented, you've swept them under the rug as if I've never brought them to your attention and, quite shockingly, have claimed victory and reasserted your nonsensical position that the case for historicity is destroyed. In fact, you haven't even dealt with the most pressing matter: that fictional narratives are written, and continue to be written, about historical people.

You show once more Neil your inadequacy towards having a rational conversation. Next time you draw an analogy, try to come close to the subject matter. Comparing the creation account in Genesis to the Gospel narratives is fickle at best. There is no historical context to the creation account. There is a historical context to the Gospel narratives. And to be clear, lest you fail to grasp the language, 'historical context' means within the socio-cultural context of the period. So the Gospels purport, whether realistically or not, to be about an actual historically-verifiable period in time (early first century CE). What historically verifiable period in time does the creation account in Genesis claim to take place in?

Perhaps a better analogy would be, if you take away the mythological aspects of the Tobit narrative, you get something quite human. And you do. Because the characters in the narrative are portrayed as human (with the exception of Raphael who takes the place of Athena in the Telemachia, and the demon who haunts Sarah). Please read my words more carefully; I'm not suggesting that the figures of the Gospels existed as they are portrayed in the narrative, or even that they existed. My whole point of contention is with the unrealistic assertions about the certainty of the failure of the historical figure of Jesus. The problems addressed here, in this thread, have gone unanswered. Yet there are those who continue to claim victory.

But there is a relationship if this possibility turns out to be true. Even if it is a fragile relationship, even if only the subtle remains of the tropes themselves are all that is left of this historical figure, linking the two is not at all a stretch. It might be a fragile position, but that doesn't make it untenable.

You can say what you'd like, but you would still be wrong. This is simply how history was recorded in the past. If there had been a historical Apollonius, linking such a figure with the figure portrayed in Philostratus' biography would be acceptable. Some might argue that perhaps nothing in the narrative is viably accurate, but it is not at all wrong to link the two. Your argument makes no sense. In fact your whole position is a special plea.

That also is a possibility. If that were indeed the case, that would have implications. Those implications would shatter the core of mythicism--that is that a figure of Jesus had never existed historically. If even one figure of Jesus existed in some historical context, the position laid out here crumbles. There is no way to make any sort of determination about this question; it is something that, for now, has to remain open (until someone takes the charge and publishes something on it).

Tom Verenna

Ha! Should be 'gentle' nod. ;-) Like I said, past my bedtime. Thanks for the catch.

Toto

Tom Verenna - welcome to the forum.

It will be easier and cleaner if you reply to one person at a time.

I might also advise you that many before you have tried to explain to aa5874 the idea that a fictional account might still have a historical person at its core. All have failed to make an impression.

spin

So, feisty HJers and MJers, do you get the message yet? Tom Verenna has espoused a non-partisan evaluation of the Jesus real/myth situation. Perhaps you can now put your fangs back, rather than attack fresh meat, and either get to 1) providing conclusive evidence for history/myth or to 2) stabbing each other with your barbs.

Tom Verenna

It's not so much 'vague' as it is a 'cautious' term. There is more than one 'figure of Jesus', insomuch as there are multiple portrayals of Jesus. Each portrayal is its own figure. I apologize if this terminology came off esoteric; its a phrase I use a lot with some of my colleagues from Copenhagen.

Quite. And that is my position. One might argue that they lean a certain way or another, but claims about historicity can not be certain. We just don't have the sort of evidence to make a judgement on the matter yet and no study yet exists which can put this case to rest. Hopefully Doherty will take up the task and seek out a journal to submit such a study. I would be interested to see it.

I am not sure that such a position could be made just by using the Gospels. Though it would be interesting to see such a thing done. You might argue for certain facets of mythicism using the Gospels, but a case cannot stand alone on just the Gospels. For example, how does one address the problem associated with the synoptics? What about Signs and Q? Have these issues been addressed? What about the claim of multiple attestation? Or the criterion of embarrassment?

I'm not saying that these cannot be refuted, or that positions cannot be made against them. My concern is that individuals in this thread are rushing too quickly to make assertions about the state of the evidence without really understanding the evidence.

You're right. But it is not a faux pas assumption in the field. Scholars are used to working with very limited, highly mythologized pieces of evidence. Drawing conclusions about the state of historicity from this sort of evidence is part of the job. Sometimes these conclusions are tenable, sometimes they are fragile, and sometimes it is in between. This is not something unique to Biblical Studies. Scholars in other fields, like Classics or even Sumerology, deal with these sorts of issues all the time. Was Gilgamesh a historical person? Some top-notch scholars believe he was. The late S.N. Kramer believed he was and I dare say he wrestled with the question of certainty often. The status quo in most circles is to accept historicity of figures, within certain historical contexts, until proven otherwise. This method has proved to be fruitful more often than not.

Tom Verenna

Toto,

Thank you for your warm welcome. I cannot promise I will be as active in the future, but on occasion I will try to make an appearance.

Yes, you're right it is cleaner to reply to one person at a time. I apologize for the confusion my previous comments might cause.

Your warning shall not be ignored! It has become abundantly clear that you are correct. Still, my answers are not just for the benefit of aa5874.

spin

I have used Gilgamesh as one of a number of examples of figures who are beyond the ken of history, ie one cannot provide any direct evidence for the figure.

The problem with Jesus is somewhat different from those of Gilgamesh or Ned Ludd or Sir John Mandeville. There is no vested interest in those figures so we can happily leave them on the shelf and say the evidence is missing. And if some maximalist decides to assert the existence of one, we know it is mere folly. However, in the case of christianity there is a vested interest and an industry to promote it. There is no vested interest in Ebion and he has been consigned to non-existence. There is no vested interest in Robin Hood and he sits on the shelf. But christianity has every boy and his dog giving their opinions as to the historical or mythical nature of Jesus.

Jesus is treated differently.

Tom Verenna

Quite so. The evidence for each is unique and thus needs to be weighed accordingly.

Also true.

This might be so, but the question of historicity is an important matter for the historian, not just the industry behind the figure itself (whichever figure that might be). Historicity has implications, as does mythicism, towards the origins of a religion which continues today. For anthropologists, sociologists, and historians alike, having an answer to this question answers other questions, raises new concerns, and promises at least some understanding about a past which is nearly lost to us. If Gilgamesh had never existed historically, how might that information influence our data about the period of rule in which we place him? And what of Socrates? Imagine how that might dash our assertions about Plato or Xenophon and that whole period in time! What if Lycurgus turned out to be a historical figure who founded Sparta, how might such information change our way of thinking about that period and the city-state itself?

So in the mind of the historian, this question has vested interest; it does not matter to whom it had been applied. The job of the historian is to interpret and present to us accurately the past as they can best explain it. Otherwise whole constructs are created which might never have existed, while others are all but ignored and forgotten.