spamandham

One man's strong is another man's weak. I still don't get how any of the four points you listed provide any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, for a HJ. They're not incompatible with the idea... but that isn't the same as making a positive case for it.

Unless we really understand the culture that spawned the texts we have, and the motives of the writers, we can't say one way or another how strong a circumstantial case those texts make.

steve_bnk

I gew up in the RCC and went to RCC schools. In the 70s I wwandered through eastern mysiticsim and religion like a gerat many others in the day.

There were Moonies, The Divine Light Mission, The Maharishi, the Hindhu/Hare Krishnas, new age stuff like EST and many more. Over the last 4 years I've worked in a very diverse compoany and it is common to fall into discusiion with Jews, Muslims, and Chritaions along with agnostics like me. I never pass up the chance to exchange ideas with peole.

If you are looking for cultural understanding you won't get it from the internet, you have to go out and engage people.
it is not arrived at by logical argument with a winner and a loser.

Take away divinity and look how the Mormon religion grew from one man who claimed to have been given golden tablets by an angel to the Mormons of today. Sound like Moses?

Watch the Bill Moyer's interviews with Joseph Campble on myths. He was truly a master of myth and religion from ancient to today. One of the things he saad was that the human conctext underlying all mytgs are fundamntaly the same. John Wayne on his journey in The Searchers is fundamentaly no different than a Homeric epic. Peole in both ages woild read the same in the litereray heros of both ages.

You maybe be able to the DVDs thru PBS online.

All that being said, human nature and religion hasn';t changed much in 2000 years. Look at the interplay between the two modern mythical Star Trek characters Macoy and Spock, the rational and the emotional aspects of human nature constantly at war. The image of Spock and Rambo are both modern myths and we read specific things from the images.

aa5874

You have not produce any good information from antiquity for your case. Plausibility is not history.

steve_bnk

When hostory is not reliable plausibility is the next best.

aa5874

I think that may be the way Jesus was fabricated in antiquity.

There was no history, so Jesus was made plausible.

In antiquity, 2000 years ago, it was plausible for Jesus to have been born of a virgin, to have raised the dead, to spit in peoples eyes and make them see.

In antiquity, it was plausible for Jesus to have transfigured and bring dead prophets to life while God spoke through clouds.

In antiquity, it was plausible for Jesus to have resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

The authors had no history of Jesus so they used the next best thing.

Now, today, we have a similar scenario, the HJer has no history so the next best thing is plausibility.

spamandham

I don't disagree with any of this, and I think you would agree that Star Trek is not evidence of a historical Spock, nor are Star Trek conventions circumstantial evidence of a historical Kirk. And, fanatics arguing about specs of the Enterprise or quoting the favorite things their favorite characters said to make salient pionts about life - do not strengthen the case.

If we did not know a priori that Star Trek is fiction, the case for a historical Kirk would be little different than the case for a historical Jesus. We might even hear arguments along the lines of "well, obviously the time travel stuff didn't happen, but I see nothing implausibe with the idea of a space mission, so that part is probably historical. Also, I think we can conclusively say Picard grew up on a vinyard. Why bring such mundane details into the storyline if they are not true? The principle of embarasment comes into play, because if Picard were just a hero character and not historical, they would have had him be the son of a world leader." I must say, I've seen some pretty god aweful arguments in support of an HJ - even by atheists.

Few were educated 2000 years ago, but some were highly educated and very creative. The texts, obviously, were not written by the uneducated masses, they were written by those who knew how to write.

People today are amazingly gullible. Imagine how much more that was the case 2000 years ago when hardly anyone had an education, skepticism was deemed a character flaw, and gods and spirits lived in every rock and blade of grass. Am I claiming the gospels are fiction? No, but they definitely contain quite a bit of creative writing. Who's to say where the creativity ends and history begins in such a tale? Only someone with a strong understanding of the culture and some insight into the writers' motives could hope to make such a judgement.

By the by, I also grew up RC, wandered in and out of agnosticism, and turned into a fundy Baptist for a brief period leading up to my catharsis.

steve_bnk

The point by Campbel was that the form of the myths change with time but the content remains the same. Star Trek characters are culturaly modern myths.

Gene Rodenbury said in an interview that the intent when he did the pilot for the show was a red blooded Capt Kirk buzzing the galaxy for 'a piece of ass'(his words), the moralty themes came later, and look at how people quickly tuned Rodenbury's idea into what it became, a movement.

But your point is correct. If 2000 years from now Star Traek manuscripts were found they could be ana;lyzed as you said, making the analogy to biblical analysys.

Or for that manner a Jay Leno monlogue. Witghoput having lived in the day the meanings and intent of his lines would not make sense. Interpreting with a dictionary would not work without knowuing the cuklture of today and who the people wrer he made fun of.

gentleexit

I know this an old saw but would be interested in your take on it ...

Is it plausible that those who wrote against Christianity in the third and fourth centuries missed the best attack of all? That there was no J-Man? That Porphyry, in particular, so precise, so learned, would fail to raise that possibility? I buy that Julian could miss it. By his time, much of fuzziness of early Christianity had been swept away but Porphyry? Everything still in play, in living memory. Plausible?

GakuseiDon

Appearances? When did Jesus appear, according to Paul? Where did Jesus appear? When did Paul travel? When did Paul even live? Can we tell from Paul alone? Other than a few odd exceptions, there is clearly a pattern there.

I agree that our view of the importance of details about the historical Jesus grew after the Enlightenment. I suspect that's why so many today are surprised by how few details early Christian writers -- including those who clearly believed in a historical Jesus -- included in their "occasional" letters. Why would they write like that? I don't know (though I've heard various theories around "high context" cultures). But that they DID write that way -- including those who believed in a historical Jesus -- there is no doubt.

:huh: "Trying to prove a history existed by showing that no-one talked about it"? No, I agree that would be silly. I'm trying to show that, though it surprises us post-Enlightenment amateurs of Biblical studies, the lack of historical details in early Christian writings forms a pattern that can't be ignored. That Christian writers who clearly believed in a historical Jesus ALSO wrote that way suggests that it isn't just related to ahistorical beliefs.

Let me summarize:

1. This pattern of general lack of historical reporting in "occasional" letters, even in historicists' writings, doesn't disprove mythicism. But mythicists never go beyond the "missing Jesus" information. They apply their post-Enlightenment notions of how the early Christians should have written, without considering the mindset of that early period.
2. There might well be a good reason why lack of historical details exist in the Second Century, that doesn't apply to early letters by Paul.
3. I'm not "trying to prove a history existed by showing that no-one talked about it", I'm saying that one part of the mythicist' case -- silence about Jesus -- needs to be put into a wider context than it currently is.

As for Athenagoras: If you have found out that he was a Christian who didn't believe in some kind of Jesus Christ, then congratulations! You have made a wonderful discovery. You have found a new version of Christianity that no-one else has found.

However, on the flip side, if Athenagoras was orthodox (as I personally believe the evidence strongly suggests) then we can add him to the list of other "false negatives". He becomes another example against mythicism.

steve_bnk

If JC was born out of wedlock a virgin birth would have to be invented, the scandal would have been insurmountable. I've read a theory that the resurection therolgy was added later with the images being more Greek than Jewish.