Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 04-27-2012, 09:17 PM

Hi all,

It is acknowledged by those who believe in an HJ that much of the character and activities of Jesus in the gospels have been invented by writers based on previous writers. They conclude that these previous writers based themselves on oral traditions about a real historical person. They suggest that there is some method of distinguishing the later invented material from the actions and character of the original historical person.

I will argue that one can generally trace fictional characters back to some historical person. However, well developed fictional characters only carry traces of the historical personage they are based on and those traces are trivial.

Let us take the case of "Barnabus Collins" the vampire in the movie "Dark Shadows" that will be released next month. There is not one person in the world who believes that Barnabus Collins is an historical person. Yet, unlike the fictional character of Jesus in the gospels, we can positively trace back the fictional character of Barnabus Collins to an actual historical person.

According to Wikipedia, "Barnabas's abilities mimic those of the classic vampire Dracula—these include extra strength, hypnotism, the ability to transform into a bat and disappear and reappear at will."

In the book "Dracula in Visual Media: Film, Television, Comic Book and Electronic Game" by John Edgar Browning and Caroline Joan Picart, he is called a "Dracula-type Vampire"

So Barnaby Collins is a fiction based on the fictional character of "Dracula." We know Dracula is a fictional created by Bram Stoker in his 1897 novel "Dracula".

Who did Stoker base his Dracula on? Who was the historical Dracula? It turns out that Dracula was based on a number of historical persons.

From Wikipedia "Dracula"

Quote:

Before writing Dracula, Stoker spent seven years researching European folklore and stories of vampires, being most influenced by Emily Gerard's 1885 essay "Transylvania Superstitions".

Despite being the most well-known vampire novel, Dracula was not the first. It was preceded and partly inspired by Sheridan Le Fanu's 1871 "Carmilla", about a lesbian vampire who preys on a lonely young woman, and by Varney the Vampire, a lengthy penny dreadful serial from the mid-Victorian period by James Malcolm Rymer. The image of a vampire portrayed as an aristocratic man, like the character of Dracula, was created by John Polidori in "The Vampyre" (1819), during the summer spent with Frankenstein creator Mary Shelley, her husband, the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron in 1816. The Lyceum Theatre, where Stoker worked between 1878 and 1898, was headed by the actor-manager Henry Irving, who was Stoker's real-life inspiration for Dracula's mannerisms and who Stoker hoped would play Dracula in a stage version.[5] Although Irving never did agree to do a stage version, Dracula's dramatic sweeping gestures and gentlemanly mannerisms drew their living embodiment from Irving.[5]

The Dead Un-Dead was one of Stoker's original titles for Dracula, and up until a few weeks before publication, the manuscript was titled simply The Un-Dead. Stoker's Notes for Dracula show that the name of the count was originally "Count Wampyr", but while doing research, Stoker became intrigued by the name "Dracula", after reading William Wilkinson's book Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia with Political Observations Relative to Them (London 1820),[6] which he found in the Whitby Library, and consulted a number of times during visits to Whitby in the 1890s.[7] The name Dracula was the patronym (Drăculea) of the descendants of Vlad II of Wallachia, who took the name "Dracul" after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the Romanian language, the word dracul (Romanian drac "dragon" + -ul "the") can mean either "the dragon" or, especially in the present day, "the devil"

We can say that the name of Dracula came from descendents of Vlad II of Wallachia.
The mannerism came from the actor Henry Irving

We can trace the character also back to Sheridan Le Fanu's 1871 "Carmilla", and James Malcolm Rymer's "Varney the Vampire" (1845-1847)

Stoker has taken a number of elements from Carmilla and placed them in his Dracula. From Wikipedia on Carmilla:

Quote:

Carmilla selected exclusively female victims, though only became emotionally involved with a few. Carmilla had nocturnal habits, but was not confined to the darkness. She had unearthly beauty and was able to change her form and to pass through solid walls. Her animal alter ego was a monstrous black cat, not a large dog as in Dracula. She did, however, sleep in a coffin.

Stoker has also taken a great deal from "Varny the Vampire. According to Wikipedia, Varny is a much more human like figure:

Quote:

Many of today's standard vampire tropes originated in Varney: Varney has fangs, leaves two puncture wounds on the necks of his victims, has hypnotic powers, and has superhuman strength.[3] Unlike later fictional vampires, he is able to go about in daylight and has no particular fear or loathing of crosses or garlic. He can eat and drink in human fashion as a form of disguise, but he points out that human food and drink do not agree with him. His vampirism seems to be a fit that comes on him when his vital energy begins to run low; he is a regular person between feedings.

.

Yet, Varny himself is firmly based on "The Vampyre" by John Polidori. It is with Polidori that we find our historical Dracula.

Quote:

The Vampyre" was first published on 1 April 1819 by Henry Colburn in the New Monthly Magazine with the false attribution "A Tale by Lord Byron". The name of the work's protagonist, "Lord Ruthven", added to this assumption, for that name was originally used in Lady Caroline Lamb's novel Glenarvon (from the same publisher), in which a thinly-disguised Byron figure was also named Lord Ruthven. Despite repeated denials by Byron and Polidori, the authorship often went unclarified.

It is clear that Polidori used his friend Lord Byron as the historical model for his fictional vampire character of "Lord Ruthven."

While we can grant the mannerisms of Dracula to the actor Henry Ivring and the name to Vlad II, it is clear that the aristocratic nature of Dracula comes from Lord Byron himself. Dracula is in the line of Byronic Vampires actually started by Lord Byron himself in a short unfinished work called "Fragment of a Novel" written in 1818. Polidori has admitted getting his vampire idea from Byron.

We can trace Barnabus Collins and the vampires from "Twilight" "Vampire Diaries," "True Blood' and most other modern movie and book vampires to Dracula. We can trace Dracula back to the historical person Lord Byron.

Unfortunately, we cannot trace Jesus of Nazareth back to an historical person. We can only trace him back to the fog of some kind of possible oral tradition. Thus we can say that Dracula is more historical than the character of Jesus, or rather we can say that we know a great deal about the historical Dracula, while we know nothing about the historical Jesus.

Since the fictional vampires based on Dracula only superficially resemble the historical Lord Byron, we have even less reason to believe that the fictional Jesuses we read about in the Gospels are anything like the character of the unknown man they may have been based upon.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-27-2012, 09:36 PM

But you still allow that there could have been an unknown man?

I think the Dracula analogy is a good one (I sometimes use Historical St. Nikolaus/Santa Claus myself).

I think that I would still say Vlad the Impaler is "the historical Dracula," or to put it another way, I think we all understand that Gospel Jesus - as written - is a mythical character, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a Vlad or a St. Nick behind the myth. I realize that, to many, this would not really be Jesus and not be interesting, but it's interesting to me.

Adam · 04-27-2012, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It is acknowledged by those who believe in an HJ that much of the character and activities of Jesus in the gospels have been invented by writers based on previous writers. They conclude that these previous writers based themselves on oral traditions about a real historical person. They suggest that there is some method of distinguishing the later invented material from the actions and character of the original historical person.
...
Unfortunately, we cannot trace Jesus of Nazareth back to an historical person. We can only trace him back to the fog of some kind of possible oral tradition. Thus we can say that Dracula is more historical than the character of Jesus, or rather we can say that we know a great deal about the historical Dracula, while we know nothing about the historical Jesus.

Since the fictional vampires based on Dracula only superficially resemble the historical Lord Byron, we have even less reason to believe that the fictional Jesuses we read about in the Gospels are anything like the character of the unknown man they may have been based upon.

It seems, Jay,
That your memory is poor or you are misstating the strength of your position. I profoundly disagree with every sentence I have quoted of yours above. Yet you are one of the few people here on FRDB courageous enough to investigate my stuff, so how can you fairly state the above? Here's some of our exchange on The Myth of Oral Communication of Jesus' Sayings and the Karma Chain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Jay,
Your #131 is a clever reply, but do any of these have source-critical analyses that yield sources congruent with my alpha-omega principle? Your link to my Post #9 in Christian Forums is to what I posted here in FRDB in my
Gospel Eyewitnesses thread as #450:

I accept such classic sources for my seven eyewitnesses as the Passion Narrative, the Signs Source, the Johannine Discourses, Q, L, and two basic sources within the Gospel of Mark.

maryhelena · 04-28-2012, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

But you still allow that there could have been an unknown man?

I think the Dracula analogy is a good one (I sometimes use Historical St. Nikolaus/Santa Claus myself).

I think that I would still say Vlad the Impaler is "the historical Dracula," or to put it another way, I think we all understand that Gospel Jesus - as written - is a mythical character, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a Vlad or a St. Nick behind the myth. I realize that, to many, this would not really be Jesus and not be interesting, but it's interesting to me.

And that's it really, is it not? However much a character in a story is a literary creation, that fact does not negate the possibility, the very real possibility, that the created fictional character has been 'colored' by the life stories of flesh and blood, historical, figures.

Even Earl Doherty granted this fact:

Quote:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.

It is this issue that I have tried to get Earl to consider more fully. However, for whatever reason, a reluctance to do so seems to be there...

When, over 30 years ago, I started to read on the question of myth in the Jesus story and realized the extent of myth in that Jesus story, I did not go the way of the historicists. I did not think that by removing the mythological and supernatural elements, that a normal man lies underneath, or behind, all the magic stuff. Basically, because I don't think a Jewish culture is going to go this route for a flesh and blood man.

What's left? What's behind or underneath the gospel JC story is history. I reached for a history book. It's by considering the historical figures relevant to Jewish history that a composite Jesus figure emerges. That method, a composite Jesus figure, allowed the Jewish writers of the gospel Jesus story, the freedom to overcome their cultural reluctance to ascribe mythical, supernatural, elements to a normal human man.

So, while I think interpretation of the gospel JC story, in and for itself, is an interesting thing to do - interpretation of the JC story will only produce interpretations of the JC story - it will not produce, or lead to, a historical gospel JC (of whatever variation...). There is no such historical JC figure. There is only historical figures. Historical figures whom the gospel writers deemed to be relevant to their creation of their literary JC gospel figure.

So - if it's early christian history that we are seeking - then the historical figures that were relevant to the gospel writers, in the creation of their literary JC figure - should be considered. How can a search for early christian origins be undertaken if such historical figures are deemed to be of no consequence?

Here is a link to a historical chart from an earlier thread:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

MrMacSon · 04-28-2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

... much of the character and activities of Jesus in the gospels have been invented by writers based on previous writers. They conclude that these previous writers based themselves on oral traditions about a real historical person. ...

I will argue that one can generally trace fictional characters back to some historical person. However, well developed fictional characters only carry traces of the historical personage they are based on and those traces are trivial.

I think it is likely there are several figures behind the Jesus character, and that Paul* is so different to the canonical Gospels because they were originally different stories about different characters that have been altered to somewhat align as they were collated into the New Testament.

I agree with maryhelena & Earl ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

... the very real possibility, that the created fictional character has been 'colored' by the life stories of flesh and blood, historical, figures.

Even Earl Doherty granted this fact:

Quote:

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

I did not think that by removing the mythological and supernatural elements, that a normal man lies underneath, or behind, all the magic stuff. Basically, because I don't think a Jewish culture is going to go this route for a flesh and blood man.

It's by considering the historical figures relevant to Jewish history that a composite Jesus figure emerges. ... a composite Jesus figure, allowed the Jewish writers of the gospel Jesus story, the freedom to overcome their cultural reluctance to ascribe mythical, supernatural, elements to a normal human man.

* Paul may be a fictitious character, too. Simply a literary device to try to substantiate 'his' story.

andrewcriddle · 04-28-2012, 01:51 AM

FWIW one should also link Dracula to (the legend of) Elizabeth_Bathory

Andrew Criddle

sotto voce · 04-28-2012, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi all,

It is acknowledged by those who believe in an HJ that much of the character and activities of Jesus in the gospels have been invented by writers based on previous writers.

Bob Hope lives.

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2012, 07:09 AM

Hi Adam,

I do agree that your approach is more interesting than most who bring the origin of the gospels back to the magic of oral tradition. Finding material that may be eyewitness material is a more sensible path.

However, it is hard to tell first person fictional narrative from historical first person narrative. I would note that much of Dracula is written in the first person, as well as the vampire story of "Camilla." The ancient Roman novel, The Metamorphoses of Apuleius" (AKA "The Golden Ass) is written in the first person. We know that the Old Testament contains first person accounts by prophets that were written by people writing hundreds of years afterwards. Almost every child trained by a rhetorician to write had to write first person letters in the name of famous people. Thus writings of fictional first person accounts were quite common throughout the Roman empire.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It is acknowledged by those who believe in an HJ that much of the character and activities of Jesus in the gospels have been invented by writers based on previous writers. They conclude that these previous writers based themselves on oral traditions about a real historical person. They suggest that there is some method of distinguishing the later invented material from the actions and character of the original historical person.
...
Unfortunately, we cannot trace Jesus of Nazareth back to an historical person. We can only trace him back to the fog of some kind of possible oral tradition. Thus we can say that Dracula is more historical than the character of Jesus, or rather we can say that we know a great deal about the historical Dracula, while we know nothing about the historical Jesus.

Since the fictional vampires based on Dracula only superficially resemble the historical Lord Byron, we have even less reason to believe that the fictional Jesuses we read about in the Gospels are anything like the character of the unknown man they may have been based upon.

It seems, Jay,
That your memory is poor or you are misstating the strength of your position. I profoundly disagree with every sentence I have quoted of yours above. Yet you are one of the few people here on FRDB courageous enough to investigate my stuff, so how can you fairly state the above? Here's some of our exchange on The Myth of Oral Communication of Jesus' Sayings and the Karma Chain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Jay,
Your #131 is a clever reply, but do any of these have source-critical analyses that yield sources congruent with my alpha-omega principle? Your link to my Post #9 in Christian Forums is to what I posted here in FRDB in my
Gospel Eyewitnesses thread as #450:

I accept such classic sources for my seven eyewitnesses as the Passion Narrative, the Signs Source, the Johannine Discourses, Q, L, and two basic sources within the Gospel of Mark.

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2012, 07:29 AM

Hi MrMacSon,

Yes, one or several historical persons might be inspiration for bits and pieces of the Gospel Jesus characters. It still does not make any of the gospel Jesuses an historical figure. In the same way, even if we can trace back elements in Dracula to Lord Byron, we cannot call Dracula historical. We still have to categorize him as a fictional character. Since fictional stories having to do with Gods (immortal or eternal people) are generally categorized as mythology we would have to put the Jesus characters in that category. Perhaps because Jesus and Dracula do die, pseudo-mythological or neo-mythological might be a better category title.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

... much of the character and activities of Jesus in the gospels have been invented by writers based on previous writers. They conclude that these previous writers based themselves on oral traditions about a real historical person. ...

I will argue that one can generally trace fictional characters back to some historical person. However, well developed fictional characters only carry traces of the historical personage they are based on and those traces are trivial.

I think it is likely there are several figures behind the Jesus character, and that Paul* is so different to the canonical Gospels because they were originally different stories about different characters that have been altered to somewhat align as they were collated into the New Testament.

{snip}

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2012, 07:33 AM

Hi maryhelena,

Excellent points. Thanks for the chart. I think the prophet Jesus, son of Ananus, who predicted doom for Jerusalem and the temple, might be added to the chart.
As you note, besides all kinds of historical figures, the New Testament writers also had all the stock characters in the Hebrew Scriptures to draw upon.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

But you still allow that there could have been an unknown man?

I think the Dracula analogy is a good one (I sometimes use Historical St. Nikolaus/Santa Claus myself).

I think that I would still say Vlad the Impaler is "the historical Dracula," or to put it another way, I think we all understand that Gospel Jesus - as written - is a mythical character, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a Vlad or a St. Nick behind the myth. I realize that, to many, this would not really be Jesus and not be interesting, but it's interesting to me.

And that's it really, is it not? However much a character in a story is a literary creation, that fact does not negate the possibility, the very real possibility, that the created fictional character has been 'colored' by the life stories of flesh and blood, historical, figures.

Even Earl Doherty granted this fact:

Quote:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.

It is this issue that I have tried to get Earl to consider more fully. However, for whatever reason, a reluctance to do so seems to be there...

When, over 30 years ago, I started to read on the question of myth in the Jesus story and realized the extent of myth in that Jesus story, I did not go the way of the historicists. I did not think that by removing the mythological and supernatural elements, that a normal man lies underneath, or behind, all the magic stuff. Basically, because I don't think a Jewish culture is going to go this route for a flesh and blood man.

What's left? What's behind or underneath the gospel JC story is history. I reached for a history book. It's by considering the historical figures relevant to Jewish history that a composite Jesus figure emerges. That method, a composite Jesus figure, allowed the Jewish writers of the gospel Jesus story, the freedom to overcome their cultural reluctance to ascribe mythical, supernatural, elements to a normal human man.

So, while I think interpretation of the gospel JC story, in and for itself, is an interesting thing to do - interpretation of the JC story will only produce interpretations of the JC story - it will not produce, or lead to, a historical gospel JC (of whatever variation...). There is no such historical JC figure. There is only historical figures. Historical figures whom the gospel writers deemed to be relevant to their creation of their literary JC gospel figure.

So - if it's early christian history that we are seeking - then the historical figures that were relevant to the gospel writers, in the creation of their literary JC figure - should be considered. How can a search for early christian origins be undertaken if such historical figures are deemed to be of no consequence?

Here is a link to a historical chart from an earlier thread:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

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

04-27-2012, 09:36 PM	#2
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	But you still allow that there could have been an unknown man? I think the Dracula analogy is a good one (I sometimes use Historical St. Nikolaus/Santa Claus myself). I think that I would still say Vlad the Impaler is "the historical Dracula," or to put it another way, I think we all understand that Gospel Jesus - as written - is a mythical character, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a Vlad or a St. Nick behind the myth. I realize that, to many, this would not really be Jesus and not be interesting, but it's interesting to me.

04-28-2012, 01:51 AM	#6
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	FWIW one should also link Dracula to (the legend of) Elizabeth_Bathory Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.