PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Let me give you another example where I think the concept is helpful.

Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire starred in ten movies together between 1933 and 1949. Only in the last two, The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle (1939) and The Barkleys of Broadway (1949) did they play married couples.

The first movie is based on events in the life of two historical people, Vernon and Irene Castle, who became big dancing stars between 1912 and 1918. Some of the events in the film are quite historically accurate, such as the recreation of the actual dances that they became famous for. However, other things are changed, for example, Irene's best friend, Walter, was a black man. In the movie, Walter is portrayed as a white man, (Walter Brennan). Many scenes are entirely made up for dramatic/melodramatic effect. For example a scene portraying a final meeting between Irene and Vernon in which they express their undying love for each other is entirely made up.

I think clearly that we have to place this film in the category of strongly historically based.

On the other hand The Barkleys of Broadway is much more problematic. In their success and fame, Josh and Dinah Barkley resemble Alfred Lunt and his wife Lynn Fontaine, who were the most successful husband and wife actors on Broadway in the 1920's, 30's and 40's. On the other hand, the main plot involves Dinah wanting to stop doing musical comedies with Josh so she can concentrate on more dramatic roles. This seems to be based more on the relationship of Astaire and Rogers. After they stopped doing dance musicals together in 1939, Astaire continued in movie musicals while Rogers went on to do many diverse parts, including dramatic ones. (She won an Oscar in 1940 for her dramatic acting in Kitty Foyle.) It is also quite probable that a lot of the relationship of the screenplay writers Adolph Green and Betty Comden is reflected in the movie. Green and Comden were not married, but they did have a working relationship that lasted some 60 years. Further complicating the problem is that the original screenplay was written not for Astaire and Rogers, but for Astaire and Judy Garland. Judy Garland had to drop out due to ill health and Rogers replaced her. This situation may have led to the incredibly sweet scene where Astaire sings the song, "You'll be Hard to Replace" to Rogers.

Ultimately, the characters and story of the Barkleys of Broadway is based on a number of historical persons and incidents, but also on incidents that are made up for dramatic purposes. Ultimately the Barkleys of Broadways are literary characters, yet because they do have attributes taken from different historical persons, we can say that they are trivially historical characters.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Again, the fundamental question is whether there was a Synoptic, Johanine or Pauline Jesus Messiah who was worshiped as a God, considered to be equal God, believed to have been RAISED from the dead with the ability to REMIT the SINS of the JEWS before the Fall of the Temple.

There is SIMPLY NO corroborative source for the Synoptic, Johanine, or Pauline JESUS MESSIAH at all.

1. The JESUS MESSIAH cannot be found BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

2. The JESUS Messiah believers cannot be found BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

3. The worship of a MAn as a God by JEWS is historically improbable BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

4. The accomplishment of the JESUS Messiah was achieved by a non-historical event, the resurrection.

That JESUS of the NT Canon was fictional/mythical is an EXTREMELY reasonable sound theory and FAR superior to the HJ proposal or belief.

Trivialities are for HJ.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Exactly, trivialities are for HJers.

Those who support the historical Jesus hypothesis, find evidence for Jesus the fisherman, or Jesus the Rabbi, or Jesus the Rebel, or Jesus the magician. As there certainly were fishermen and rabbis and rebels and magicians around in that time period, they are able to come up with a lot of evidence that there might have been an historical Jesus of this or that attribute or profession. All they produce is evidence for a trivially historical Jesus where this or that attribute is placed in a literary/mythological character and story. Even if they were able to prove that this or that attribute was based on a real historical person (which has never been done) it would still be a trivial historical fact and Jesus would still be a literary/mythological character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

So HJ was a composite of a mutliplicity of TRIVIALITIES. Or every male born in Judea that was circumcised qualifies to be a trivial historical Jesus. Even the sons of Jupiter or Zeus and his offspring can qualify for a trivial Jesus if people believe they were historical.

The HJ is trivial or of VERY LITTLE substance.

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay and aa5874,

The fish is the classical epigraphic symbol alluded to in mainstrem "Christian Archaeological References" as representative of a very real "Christian presence in ths stones" and the evidence of the worship of this "Trivial Historical Jesus Postulate". My favorite trivialisation for the HJ are the bunch of five Arian sophisms (eg: The HJ was made out of nothing existing). The most interesting mythicist argument for me is the one closest to the Council of Nicaea, since this is the earliest verifiable historical, non mythological and political Christian event (it may have been mythologized though).

PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

Good point about the range of correlations between fictions and history.

In the case of "West Side Story" and "Romeo and Juliet," it is important to remember that "Romeo and Juliet" is a fiction based on "Pyramus and Thesbe which goes back at least to the 1st century C.E. and was mythological even then. It could have been based on some real historical incident, but we cannot tell if it happened in the 1st C.E. or three hundred years before.

Another Arthur Laurents masterpiece "Gypsy" is also relevant. It is based very loosely on the early life of Gypsy Rose Lee. From wikipedia:

It is fictionalized to the point that the actual title is "Gypsy: A Musical Fable". While the essential relationship between Louise (Gypsy Rose Lee) and her mother Rose may have a great deal of truth in it. Many characters and scenes are entirely made up.

There are enough historical details (Rose did have two children in Vaudeville named June and Louise, and Louise did become a stripper) that this has to be considered historically based.

(Although the line "Sing out, Louise, sing out," may be the secular musical equivalent to the Nicene Creed.)

While "West Side Story" is based on Myth," and "Gypsy" is based on an historical biography, Laurents' third masterpiece, "The Way We Were" (perhaps the greatest modern romantic movie) although based on his own experiences, is trivially historical.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay