Chris Weimer

I also want to point out that we're supposed to read the gospels as myth also. Remember, just because it's mythical does not mean that it is not historical as well. The Trojan War is mythical (and very much so believed by Ancient Greeks along with the gods' participation in that war) but there was actually a Troy and there was actually a war between Troy and Achaea. So it would be erroneous to say that reading Zeus doesn't warrant reading history as well.

Chris Weimer

Charles Wilson,

You have an interesting theory working there, but without a methodology and evidence to back it up, it's virtually useless. Moreover, by concluding that the stories were written in the early part of the 1st century, are you including the gospels in there as well? What about Paul? I've no problem with an original Jesus - in fact I argue that point. But the gospels are not Jewish documents, and they do not support the priesthood. How then would you explain the corruption?

best,

Chris

Julian

Sure, we can get information regarding the setting and historical environment from mythology, just as we can get information about New York from King Kong, that still doesn't make a giant ape any more real, the same is true for Zeus.

Julian

Rick Sumner

I sincerely hope the irony in this paragraph is intentional.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chris Weimer

Why Zeus? What about Achilles? Agamemnon? Paris? Hector? Where do you draw the lines? Why are you outright dismissing Zeus but not Priam?

I started to post longer, but I'll save it for a blogpost. I'll get back to you really soon.

Julian

Well, that's the real question, isn't it? I don't know where to draw the line, and it probably varies from case to case, and that was my whole point. We just don't know and to say otherwise is dishonest.

Julian

Rick Sumner

In general, the more distant such an event described is in history, the more likely it is to be outright fabrication, and conversely, the more recent it is, the more likely it is to have some sort of historical core. The trend is easily observible even without leaving Jewish writings. Distant events (Moses, the Patriarchs, Joshua, the Judges) tend to be outright fabrications. More recent events (Hezekiah, for example) tend to have a more historical core, but still be more fiction than truth (Hezekiah was the conquered, not the conqueror, and his seal indicates that iconography wasn't much of a concern for him, despite Biblical testament to the contrary). Even more recently described events tend to be even more historical (like the Maccabees--they actually provide an excellent example of the continuum in play. The farther we get from the events, the more fantastic the narrative becomes.).

This isn't to say that this trend is universal. Daniel, for example, is decidedly more recent than the patriarchs, but no more historical, but that doesn't change the fact that the trend in general exists--this isn't science, and anyone who says it is has been reading too much Crossan. Thus such trends carry considerably more weight than they would in more staunchly empirical fields of study.

This isn't to offer comment on the (a)historicity of Jesus, rather it is to point out that the analogy to Zeus (who, in particular, is used a lot here), is a false one. At first blush, it may appear to be a formidable point, in actuality, comparing the stories of Jesus and Zeus is less like comparing apples an oranges than it is akin to comparing apples and penguins. It's roughly equivalent to the frequently proffered apologist effort to compare Jesus to Julius or Augustus Caesar.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chris Weimer

There are several rule of thumbs we can use. It would help first though to determine what kind of person we're dealing with. As Rick noted, there's huge leaps between Zeus, Jesus, and Augustus.

Julian

I disagree. The writings of, and about, Julius, for example, contain very little that couldn't easily be historical. Now, it is true that there are mythological events interwoven with Julius' life, but they are far and few between. The stories about Jesus are generally mixed up with supernatural events. Besides, Julius never claimed to be god (the divinity later assigned to him by the state doesn't really count) whereas Jesus, supposedly did, according to the gospels. That means that we must compare Jesus to other gods. If you take the position that he was just a man and that the supernatural elements were added later, one must wonder why one would take such a position if it weren't for cultural bagage. We could compare Jesus to Hercules or Perseus but I don't know of any who would propose a historical core to those personages, although I am not a classicist so I could be wrong.

The fact is, if we read the gospels like any other ancient writings we must conclude that they are mythology as out default position. We can then proceed to prove historicity, the fact that it works the other way around can be ascribed to the prevalence of christian culture and its legacy.

Julian

Julian

Indeed. See my answer to Rick.

Julian