Alf

I thought it was generally accepted that the christians had an oral tradition of the gospel story long before it was written down in GMark. How much of that story got identified and confused with similar stories is hard to say exactly but it is fairly easy to imagine that one christian telling the story to a bunch of people and one listener speaks up and say "that is almost like Dionysus" and then the story teller answer "Maybe, but Jesus was much more than Dionysus" - refer back to my story about the 2 four year olds in the sand box.

It is also easy to imagine then that next time the story teller told the story he would add in elements to make it even more similar to dionysus just to make sure that nobody could claim that Jesus was any less than Dionysus and with the other stories in addition Jesus would clearly come out the winner.

Alf

Alf

What were you trying to say here?

I would say that what various christians thought from the earliest times up until it got written in books and even a bit after that thanks to redactions etc is of some importance as to telling how the christian religion evolved. Yes, the christian religion continued to evolve after the bibles appeared but the changes then were more along interpretation and as such are smaller differences. It was in those early years that the foundation, the fundamental features of the christian religion was formed - features that even the modern christian hold as if set in stone.

However, the earliest christians did not have the NT or other such books as guidance. They had OT and perhaps Q and oral stories - much easier to change completely according to ones own views.

While Paul is most likely a person that few modern christians would have found acceptable if he had appeared today - they would have called him fundamentalist and outdated etc etc, the fact that he is in the bible makes them find him acceptable and influential of their own beliefs.

The historical Jesus - if one existed - is much the same. I am pretty sure that if Jesus had appeared today he would have been denied visa to many countries as he looked distinctly non-european and would probably be presumed to be some palestinian terrorist or something. Few people would have liked him much. Yet, just about all christians exclaim "I love Jesus!" with their whole heart every day!

For some reason, the fact that they are from ancient times and told about in the bible makes them not only more acceptable to people but they even adore and worship and love the persons described.

Alf

Chris Weimer

Right! So far, I see a lot of people pointing out similiarities, but no one showing a trajectory. How do we know if they're accidental? How do we know if it was borrowed? A great point you brought up was the Golden Rule - it has precedence in the Hebrew scriptures, and therefore that is the place we should look for first.

I asked for a clarification. No doubt some Christians impose a double standard, I'm just making sure you don't do the same.

I don't think anyone says that there are absolutely no similiarities, or even that nothing was borrowed. The protest is that religion A was fabricated using these mishmash of other religions' traditions. So far, the fictional Jesus crowd (different than Doherty's group) have only presented similiarities, with no trajectories, and no hard evidence. A saying here, a ritual there - this type of rehashing is rare enough, but it defies logic (per Occam's Razor) to skip over the Bible, to ignore the testament of historicity, and then claim it all came from Persia, Greece, and India. That's the absurdity.

This not a serious dilemma, and largely rests with the ridiculous notion of "truth". I seriously doubt that any historian can be 100% sure of anything in antiquity. It's largely about probabilities, where we hedge our bets. And since certain claims, in this case the historicity of Jesus, has been accepted from the beginning, in debate, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that Jesus is merely a mishmash of other myths and legends.

This is standard historical practice, not just peculiar to Christian origins.

Quite so! I will never doubt this. But as I mentioned, we work in probabilities. With the evidence as it stands, it is more probable that Jesus existed than not. The status quo is that he existed - the evidence is not exactly scant. Where are they who have some serious evidence against this?

Chris Weimer

This is why we have to go with what's older - Matthew, writing after Mark, invented all sorts of tales, such as Virgin Birth, escape to Egypt, etc... Mark lacks these. Imagine how much less Mark would have if he never exaggerated.

What is authentic? What is not? Whatever it is, it does not contain characteristics of something created purely out of myth.

Chris Weimer

Alf,

Are you aware of what thread you're posting in? The arguments are that Jesus was created from myths - i.e. there was no historical Jesus. I've been arguing against that, since you seemed to be defending that, but your last post makes me question that altogether.

No doubt that modern Christianity contains imported myths - but we're not talking about modern Christianity here - we're talking about the earliest Christianity.

Chris

Alf

That depends.

If you mean "the earliest christianity borrowed from these myths" then maybe you are right and it is clearly wrong. However, that earliest christnanity doesn't exist any more - what we have today is a later christianity and that later christianity HAS clearly borrowed from these myths and then the point stands.

It is then irrelevant that the earliest christianity which was branded heretical and banned did not have those elements.

Why would the unlearned need direct contact? Indirect contact works just fine.

We know for a fact that Alexander went pretty far east. The tibetan monks wear hats that are similar to the greek soldier's hats. Would you call that a coincidence or accident?

We also know that there were some cultural exchanges and that some fakirs went to the west to explain their philosophy etc.

When we then see that the bible contain a plain rip-off of the golden rule, it is silly to assume that somehow people in the middle east cooked up this wisdom all by themselves when they had other cultural contact with the east.

That might be, but the formulation as given in NT appear to be a complete rip-off of eastern ethics and is as such an example of wisdom that at some point travelled from east to west. How early it came over I am not sure. If it came prior to Alexander or about the time of Alexander is not known to me. Nor do I know when Leviticius and Tobit was written so I cannot answer that question you pose. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us with some more info about this? Are you claiming that somehow the jews cooked up this all by themselves while the people around them got it from the east which in turn got it as revelation from the same Jesus which they mistook for Buddha some centuries earlier? No, I am not kidding, that is what some christians claim in all seriousness!


To recap what those christians claim: Jesus has existed since pre-creation and so even though his statement appear later to human than the indian tradition which also have the golden rule, it is in fact the Jesus quote that is the original and the indian which is the rip-off.

Are you claiming that their understanding is the true understanding? I hope not - that cannot be taken serious.

It is of course very likely that Jesus or early christians did not get the golden rule directly from some indian fakir or whatever. They most likely had it as common wisdom of the day and exactly where the source came from would be hard to point out - especially for them. We know however, that the golden rule has existed in the east several centuries earlier and can therefore point to it as the source and that somehow it has travelled west. That there were some contact between greek/roman culture and Indian culture at the time should be obvious.

Not exactly. When was Levicitus or Tobit written? I never claimed that Jesus himself or early christians got it directly from India. Most likely by 1st century this was "common knowledge" around the area and it was probably known earlier as well. Alexander roamed around the area 3-400 years earlier and they most likely had some indirect contact even before. They certainly had contact with the persian culture which in turn had contact with the indian culture so such borrowings could have been even earlier than Alexander.

That good ideas travel across cultures when they come in contact is nothing new. It is you who claim that such contact did not take place in this particular instance. A very strange claim indeed.

Alf

Chris Weimer

Alf,

Once again, no one cares about modern Christianity here. That is wholly besides the point. Please try to realize what thread you're in and what exactly you're defending.

Chris

jjramsey

Alexander the Great dates from the 300s B.C.E. That, if I remember correctly, is well after the Babylonian exile, by which time Leviticus would have been written.

Chris Weimer

Late 320s BCE. But you can't expect the Bacchae or the Golden Rule from India to follow directly in Alexander's footsteps. You need time before it can travel.

jakejonesiv

Hi Chris,

You have started with certain "laws" of eptymology by Reverend Skeat, and derived a respective list of canons for "historical etymology." That is an innovative approach, and one that merits examination.

I didn't see a clear statement of the thesis, so I will supply one, and you can clarify and correct it as necessary.

The rules for determining the origin and historical development of mythical traditions are essentialy the same as the rules for determining the origin and historical development of individual linguistic forms (i.e. words).

That is quite an insight if true. But it seems that you have made two assumptions:

1. "etymology and history is essentially the same"
2. "Naturally, what applies for one applies for the other"

Wow! No, I can't go with that. I am not even sure what you mean by history in this context. I will guess you mean something like "comparative mythology," but please correct me.

Now, if you had stated, "etymology and __fill in the blank____ are similar (how?), and with certain caveats, what applies for one applies for the other" I would provisionally go along with that. But then the six canons would be in for review.

Even with an unquestioning acceptance of your assumptions, I don't understand Canon 6.

Canon 6. Strong verbs…and the so-called ‘irregular’ verbs…are commonly to be considered as primary; related forms being derived from them.
Rev. Walter M. Skeat

Canon 6. The whole of a tradition, not a portion only, should be accounted for; and any infringement of phonetic/geographic/logical laws should be regarded with suspicion.
Chris Weimer

I don't see how you go from Rev. Walter M. Skeat's cannon 6 to your cannon 6. Can you explain?

Also, if we are to follow this path, should we not also have a rule for syncretism, the fusion of differing myths? Many Christian scholars will readily admit syncretism in the formation of other myths and religions, just not Christianity.

Jake Jones IV