Antipope Innocent II

Who, this J. N. L. Myres?

"The historicity of the man can hardly be called into question. The fact that his name in later ages was a magnet drawing to itself all manner of folklore and fable, and that an Arthurian cycle grew up composed partly of events transferred from other contexts, no more proves him a fictitious character than similar fables prove it of Alexander or Aristotle, Vergil or Roland. It tends rather to prove the opposite. The place which the name of Arthur occupies in Celtic legend is easiest to explain on the hypothesis that he really lived, and was a great champion of the British people."
(R. G. Colllingwood & J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements)

Ooops!

Or would you be referring to this Michael Wood?

"Did the deaths of two obscure leaders of unknown tribes give birth to the whole story .... ? It is possible."
(Michael Wood, In Search of the Dark Ages)

You seem to have found an out-of-context quote of his next line:

"Yet, reluctantly, we must conclude that there is no definite evidence that Arthur ever existed."

And no-one would disagree with that - there is no definite evidence of Arthur. 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 rather than skimming a website with an out-of-context quote.

That would be this website which just happens to have quotes from all the other writers you mention (including the one from J. N. L. Myres that you obviously didn't read properly).

In other words, you did a quick Google and then some (very sloppy) citation of a some out of context quotes from some historians and writers you haven't even read.

Tsk tsk! Try harder next time.

Doug Shaver

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

I'll revise my claim: Some historians deny Arthur's historicity. You asked for names, and I gave you six. You have challenged two of them. How about the other four?

TedM

I guess you might need to define your terms since Paul talks about Jesus' flesh and blood numerous times.

aa5874

And this is seen from the 2nd century by the anti-Marcionites. We have Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and others who wrote volumes against the 'Jesus' of Marcion.

Marcion's Jesus, the phantom, had no visual difference to the Jesus, son of a Ghost, of the NT. Both of them preached in the synagogues, both of then could perform miracles, could transfigure, resurrect and ascend.

It is also interesting to note that Marcion rejected the entire Gospels except for parts of Luke and used some of the Pauline Epistles to support his Jesus, the phantom.

It is an error, it appears, to think that the god-man, Jesus, the son of a Ghost, was the only 'historic' Christ, some propagated an 'historic' phantom that preached, sometimes in Capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

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
Andrew Criddle

karlmarx

You're right in that the terms need to be defined - I meant "flesh and blood" in the sense of "historical". Paul, admittedly, does use the term "flesh", but it's arguable that he had no historical Jesus in mind.

The first advocates of an explicitly historical JC are Iranaeus and Justin Martyr, they are both 2nd century, and neither of them required any evidence to support their position. Their advocacy of a historical JC is purely theological. Consequently, there was no difficulty for early christians to make the leap from a mythological JC to a historical JC - all that was needed was some theological hand-waving.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for the quotes.

ted

karlmarx

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).

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. If we were, for the moment, to accept the MJ hypothesis as true, we'd have the situation where Iraneaus and his followers found it easy to accept a HJ on theological grounds alone, as early as the 2nd century.

On the other hand, if the MJ hypothesis were not true, we'd still have the situation of Iraneaus and his followers convincing themselves of whether something is historical or not on theological grounds alone. Either way, it shows that the leap from mythological to historical is not that great.

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