Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-26-2009, 04:01 PM

Against Mythicism: A Case for the Plausibility of a Historical Jesus By Edmund Standing

Quote:

The story of Haile Selassie and the development of the Rastafari religion has interesting significance to the question of the historicity of Jesus. Haile Selassie is manifestly a historical figure, but imagine what might come from the following scenario. Imagine if, at some point in the future, the earth suffered a huge civilisational collapse and the vast bulk of the historical record was lost. Imagine then that humans managed to slowly rebuild civilisation and that thousands of years from now historians were trying to piece together facts about the Twentieth Century. Imagine then that the only records of Selassie's existence that had survived were the devotional accounts of Rastafarians. The only story historians would have to work with would be made up of layers of mythology. The story of Selassie, a man who arose in a time in which Ethiopians were excitedly awaiting the coming of a Messiah, would be filled with references to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, stories of miracles, tales of God walking the earth, and the denial of the reality of the Messiah's death. They would read that Selassie is still alive and that part of the proof of this is that followers can 'communicate in spirit' with him.

As a result of this, surely there would be some who would adopt a 'mythicist' position with regard to the historical Selassie. It would be argued that despite references to a specific historical period and the interweaving of elements into Selassie's story that suggest the factual existence of some historical character beneath all the mythology and stories of miracles there was in fact no Haile Selassie. Selassie would be presented as an entirely fictional figure dreamed up by black nationalists who created a mythical figurehead to galvanise the movement and give hope to its followers. It would be said that later followers misunderstood this narrative approach and mistakenly took Selassie to be someone who had actually lived. The original Rastafarians, it would be said, never intended to present a story of someone who really existed.

I wish to argue that the phenomenon of Haile Selassie goes some way to presenting a case for the plausibility of a historical Jesus beneath the layers of mythology and religious devotion that have been overlaid onto his story. . .

Standing argues that the Rastafarians mythologized Haile Selassie within his lifetime, in total disregard to the actual facts. It is an interesting analogy. (A better analogy for a mythologized man is probably the case of Sabbatai Zvi, who was not royalty, but who built up a following based on his personality and his bipolar disorder.)

The problem with this is that the Rastas picked an existing monarch to mythologize, and there is a great deal of current historical information about him. Standing has to imagine that all of the historical information is lost, while the myths created by the Rastas survive.

The second problem that I see is that the mythologized Selassie was clearly modeled on Jesus. In fact, it appears that the Rastas had an ideal type of a Black Messiah in mind, and looked around for a human to fit into their existing mythology. The person they describe has no little in common with the emperor that their Haile Selassie might as well be mythical.

But this is an interesting essay.

aa5874 · 01-26-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Against Mythicism: A Case for the Plausibility of a Historical Jesus By Edmund Standing

Quote:

The story of Haile Selassie and the development of the Rastafari religion has interesting significance to the question of the historicity of Jesus. Haile Selassie is manifestly a historical figure, but imagine what might come from the following scenario. Imagine if, at some point in the future, the earth suffered a huge civilisational collapse and the vast bulk of the historical record was lost. Imagine then that humans managed to slowly rebuild civilisation and that thousands of years from now historians were trying to piece together facts about the Twentieth Century. Imagine then that the only records of Selassie's existence that had survived were the devotional accounts of Rastafarians. The only story historians would have to work with would be made up of layers of mythology. The story of Selassie, a man who arose in a time in which Ethiopians were excitedly awaiting the coming of a Messiah, would be filled with references to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, stories of miracles, tales of God walking the earth, and the denial of the reality of the Messiah's death. They would read that Selassie is still alive and that part of the proof of this is that followers can 'communicate in spirit' with him.

As a result of this, surely there would be some who would adopt a 'mythicist' position with regard to the historical Selassie. It would be argued that despite references to a specific historical period and the interweaving of elements into Selassie's story that suggest the factual existence of some historical character beneath all the mythology and stories of miracles there was in fact no Haile Selassie. Selassie would be presented as an entirely fictional figure dreamed up by black nationalists who created a mythical figurehead to galvanise the movement and give hope to its followers. It would be said that later followers misunderstood this narrative approach and mistakenly took Selassie to be someone who had actually lived. The original Rastafarians, it would be said, never intended to present a story of someone who really existed.

I wish to argue that the phenomenon of Haile Selassie goes some way to presenting a case for the plausibility of a historical Jesus beneath the layers of mythology and religious devotion that have been overlaid onto his story. . .

Standing argues that the Rastafarians mythologized Haile Selassie within his lifetime, in total disregard to the actual facts. It is an interesting analogy. (A better analogy for a mythologized man is probably the case of Sabbatai Zvi, who was not royalty, but who built up a following based on his personality and his bipolar disorder.)

The problem with this is that the Rastas picked an existing monarch to mythologize, and there is a great deal of current historical information about him. Standing has to imagine that all of the historical information is lost, while the myths created by the Rastas survive.

The second problem that I see is that the mythologized Selassie was clearly modeled on Jesus. In fact, it appears that the Rastas had an ideal type of a Black Messiah in mind, and looked around for a human to fit into their existing mythology. The person they describe has no little in common with the emperor that their Haile Selassie might as well be mythical.

But this is an interesting essay.

The main problems with the analogy is that Haile Selassie was a known figure of history. He have real relatives, real acquaitances, and real enemies.

And further, deifying an Emperor is really nothing new.

But, the most problematic is that the Jews, unlike Rastafarians, would not worship a man as a God during the days of Pilate.

Based on the writings of Josephus, during the time of Pilate, the Jews even refused to have effigies of Caesar.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1

Quote:

. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images.....

GakuseiDon · 01-26-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The problem with this is that the Rastas picked an existing monarch to mythologize, and there is a great deal of current historical information about him. Standing has to imagine that all of the historical information is lost, while the myths created by the Rastas survive.

Why is that a problem? We don't have contemporary historical information about Jesus.

But I don't think that this tells us much than what we already know. We have examples of historical people being mythologized, and ahistorical people being historicized. It's not examples that are lacking, but whether it can shed light on how early Christians may have viewed Jesus.

aa5874 · 01-26-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Against Mythicism: A Case for the Plausibility of a Historical Jesus By Edmund Standing

Quote:

Imagine then that the only records of Selassie's existence that had survived were the devotional accounts of Rastafarians. The only story historians would have to work with would be made up of layers of mythology.

If there are only layers of mythology found about any entity, then myth must be the most reasonable conclusion.

Only layers of myth are found for Homer's Achilles, the creature must be decared a myth, until new evidence is found to contradict.

Layers of myth were found for Zeus, Serapis, Apollo, and Jesus, they must be declared myths.

There is no other reasonable choice.

It is absurd to argue for historicity solely based on layers of mythology.

Analyst · 01-26-2009, 11:08 PM

The real argument for a mythical Jesus is surely the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus in Paul?

hjalti · 01-26-2009, 11:54 PM

Sure, what Standing outlines is a plausible scenario. That's a valid point but doesn't settle the issue. The questions that need to be answered are: Is mythicism also plausible? Which scenario is more probable?

dog-on · 01-27-2009, 01:05 AM

Standing's argument amounts to special pleading...

Let's compare a person that there is specific evidence for against a person, for which no such evidence exists, and posit the question;

What if these evidential situations were, in fact, equal?

Grasping, imo...

mountainman · 01-27-2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analyst

The real argument for a mythical Jesus is surely the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus in Paul?

Dear Analyst,

Additionally implicit is the lack of evidence for a historical Paul in Paul. We must incorporate into our explication of the evolution of christian origins the manifest forgeries of the Pauline letters. First there were 14 letter that were originally deemed "authentic". How many are the Dutch radicals now claiming to be "authentic"?

And while this may be the "inner situation" with respect to the textual criticism of documents in the new testament corpus, the "outer situation" is highlighted by the lack of evidence in the manuscript tradition (we have no codices before the fourth century, gJudas being a borderline case), the lack of evidence from the archaeological tradition (setting aside the holy grail) and we have no assistance whatosever with two extant C14 citations.

Best wishes,

Pete

Steven Carr · 01-27-2009, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Against Mythicism: A Case for the Plausibility of a Historical Jesus By Edmund Standing

The question is not whether or not a particular person existed, but what should historians do if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

'That there was a historical figure, most likely a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, whose story was greatly embellished by devotees who misrepresented and exaggerated him in many ways seems to me entirely plausible.'

So this historical figure has now passed over into myth.

Only Luddites deny the advances of Biblical scholars in finding the historical Jesus.

Casper · 01-27-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The second problem that I see is that the mythologized Selassie was clearly modeled on Jesus. In fact, it appears that the Rastas had an ideal type of a Black Messiah in mind, and looked around for a human to fit into their existing mythology. The person they describe has no little in common with the emperor that their Haile Selassie might as well be mythical.

But this is an interesting essay.

I second that second

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

01-26-2009, 11:08 PM	#5
Analyst Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: PNW USA Posts: 216	The real argument for a mythical Jesus is surely the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus in Paul?

01-26-2009, 11:54 PM	#6
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	Sure, what Standing outlines is a plausible scenario. That's a valid point but doesn't settle the issue. The questions that need to be answered are: Is mythicism also plausible? Which scenario is more probable?

01-27-2009, 01:05 AM	#7
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Standing's argument amounts to special pleading... Let's compare a person that there is specific evidence for against a person, for which no such evidence exists, and posit the question; What if these evidential situations were, in fact, equal? Grasping, imo...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.