Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 12-07-2009, 07:34 AM

A few months back I posted something here about the intertwining of history and myth in South India - anyone able to track it down? - clear examples of how myth can be historicised.

And I think we can read far more into the New Testament than is there because of our assumptions of historicity.

Since when is Mark a historical document? It reads like a Jewish riff on the Illiad to me.

Quote:

But shortly after Paul, Mark writes his gospel in which he asserts that Peter and the Zebedee brothers were a historical witness of Jesus

Which is why I have asked before has anyone checked the New Testament for musical rhythms?

spin · 12-07-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Self-accreditation doesn't have much impact on anyone except the self.

You don't have direct access to the significance of these texts, so you are liable to sailing too far -- on a flight of fancy.

I do not disagree with you regarding the significance of the texts. As I said earlier, I have no idea what Mark's actual intent, nor purpose was for writing hs gospel. I do know that the character described in his gospel seems mythical and, again, I hold Mark's character to the same standard I hold Zeus and friends.

Has there been any purportedly historically "mine-able" literature or any other indicator that Zeus was real?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If we can call Zeus a myth, then categorically the same understanding applies to Jesus Christ.

This logic could be the same as: "If we can call James Dale (POTUS, Mars Attacks) fictional, then categorically the same applies to George W. Bush."

Analogies are not tools of history.

spin

Solo · 12-07-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

A few months back I posted something here about the intertwining of history and myth in South India - anyone able to track it down? - clear examples of how myth can be historicised.

And I think we can read far more into the New Testament than is there because of our assumptions of historicity.

Since when is Mark a historical document? It reads like a Jewish riff on the Illiad to me.

I take it you don't believe Troy existed.

Quote:

But shortly after Paul, Mark writes his gospel in which he asserts that Peter and the Zebedee brothers were a historical witness of Jesus

Which is why I have asked before has anyone checked the New Testament for musical rhythms?

You would not believe how many atheists I know feel that Jesus owes them something too. :constern01:

Jiri

aa5874 · 12-07-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If we can call Zeus a myth, then categorically the same understanding applies to Jesus Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This logic could be the same as: "If we can call James Dale (POTUS, Mars Attacks) fictional, then categorically the same applies to George W. Bush."

But, who made any claim about James Dale or George W.Bush? The parallel is between Zeus and Jesus Christ.

Based on your own definition, Jesus is the embodiment of a myth just like Zeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spin

Here was my definition:

Myths are narratives created to explain or embody religious ideas or practices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Analogies are not tools of history.

Your statement can hardly be true. Analogies MUST be a tool of history.

When information about entities of antiquity are analogous, then they may be placed in the same category.

Jesus and Zeus are analogous. They were worshiped as Gods in Antiquity without any credible historical source for their actual existence.

dog-on · 12-08-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I do not disagree with you regarding the significance of the texts. As I said earlier, I have no idea what Mark's actual intent, nor purpose was for writing hs gospel. I do know that the character described in his gospel seems mythical and, again, I hold Mark's character to the same standard I hold Zeus and friends.

Has there been any purportedly historically "mine-able" literature or any other indicator that Zeus was real?

I asked you earlier whether or not Zeus was, at one time, viewed as real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If we can call Zeus a myth, then categorically the same understanding applies to Jesus Christ.

This logic could be the same as: "If we can call James Dale (POTUS, Mars Attacks) fictional, then categorically the same applies to George W. Bush."

Analogies are not tools of history.

spin

Do you mean to imply that the historicity of Jesus is analogus to George Bush?

I agree, analogies are not tools of history.

spin · 12-08-2009, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Has there been any purportedly historically "mine-able" literature or any other indicator that Zeus was real?

I asked you earlier whether or not Zeus was, at one time, viewed as real.

Quote:

This logic could be the same as: "If we can call James Dale (POTUS, Mars Attacks) fictional, then categorically the same applies to George W. Bush."

Analogies are not tools of history.

Do you mean to imply that the historicity of Jesus is analogus to George Bush?

I don't see any way you can get there from what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I agree, analogies are not tools of history.

Fine (if I can hold you to that), but then you don't seem to have noticed exactly what I said.

spin

dog-on · 12-08-2009, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I asked you earlier whether or not Zeus was, at one time, viewed as real.

Do you mean to imply that the historicity of Jesus is analogus to George Bush?

I don't see any way you can get there from what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I agree, analogies are not tools of history.

Fine (if I can hold you to that), but then you don't seem to have noticed exactly what I said.

spin

I did and asked you is Zeus was ever viewed as real.

Solo · 12-08-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I see no point in Mark - whatever his theological purposes -to assert the crucifixion as an historical event, if there was none. I see no point in Mark - given his scathing critique of the disciples - to make them historical witness and Jesus' intimates, if they were not.

Gotcha. OK, I see it a bit differently. I think Mark pulled the idea out of his ass. Why do I say that? Precisely because, as I said, the idea doesn't exist in the earlier texts.

You mean Paul. But we just went through this, didn't we ? Paul does not want to deal with the folklore of the Nazarenes: he has his own revelations. He says he once knew Christ from 'a human point of view' but he no longer knows him, or any other man (!), that way. So, sure, the idea of Jesus walking with Peter and Co. does not exist in Paul. But, it's a long way from a proof that Mark invented it.

Quote:

Take Paul and Hebrews as the earliest things we have,

I believe Hebrews addresses some very important traditions about the post mortem career of the Nazarene Jesus which are at variance with Paul. By the looks of it, the text tries to reconcile those differences. I am curious where you draw your assurance that the letter is pre 70. Heb 2:3 states that the message was declared first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him. (i.e. an earlier generation)

This is what I would call evidence for earlier traditions.

Quote:

and conceptually isolate them from later writings: in neither text is there the kind of evidence we would need that would suggest to us that behind this evident myth there was a human being (i.e. that would necessarily make the Jesus myth euhemeristic, that would make that explanation a live option, our first port of call).

I grant you that both, Paul and Hebrews come from a time when the phenomenology of the Spirit was still the major preoccupation among the early Christians. It is not what Jesus said while he was on earth that counted at this earliest stage, but what Jesus said (and did) as the risen Christ (or as the Twin) through the spirit. But as the expectation of imminent parousia waned for the proto-orthodox, and the psychos got pushed out by the new church administrators (the process more or less completes with the expulsion of the Montanists), then of course, what things Jesus said and wrought in the world, and the apostolic church faithfully followed, would hold sway. That the earthly figure of Jesus comes into a relief later rather than sooner, does not in any way argue for for Jesus originating in a myth, it simply argues for his being badly overdressed. It is also a permanent warranty for the confusion about what Jesus said to Peter when dining with harlots and tax cheats and what he said to Paul on the end-of-the-world humbug channel.

Quote:

So, it is obvious to me - on cognitive grounds - that if the figure of Jesus or Jesus Christ was a wholly mythical Godhead, that Paul would have not proscribed in his church the traditions about him relating to his earthly career. After all, if he was a Promethean hero, destined to sacrifice himself for the common good of man, the deed(s) for which he was killed would have been celebrated, not tabooed. There is no myth that I know in which a hero is killed legally for a crime that the myther refuses to name because it is unedifying. It's stranger than fiction - it is likely something that happened.

This is a good argument, I have to admit. The other option is that there was not much earthly historical detail in the "gospel" (good news of a victory won

) given by the visionary entity, just edited highlights of "what I did when I wuz on Earth". I'm not sure that "but Jesus Christ, and him crucified" bears the weight of the interpreation, "Oh I'm not going to talk about any of the details of Jesus' life while he was on earth, only the juicy bit about his crucifixion"!

You are still not getting it, gg. There was nothing "juicy" about the crucifixion. It was a horrible death, and for Paul a metaphor of a totally wasted existence in the flesh. The only thing Paul enjoyed in his life were his phantasmagoric manic trips to Jesus. Everything else was damnation, hell.
He comes to Corinth, saying: "Now...lo...look at me; do I lo..look like I am ha..ha..having fu..fu...fun ?" Misery loves a company, they say.

Jiri

dog-on · 12-08-2009, 08:47 AM

How about Paul starts preaching some revealed savior. Later, someone, let's call him Peter, starts claiming that he actually knew this savior and therefore his kung fu was better.

Even later, Paul's protoge Mark, not being able to deny Peter's claims, simply trashes him and shows that, sure he knew a guy named Jesus, but was not any sort of actual witness to the defining event and Tai boxing was truly the best.

Clivedurdle · 12-08-2009, 01:27 PM

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=249124

Quote:

The Cult of the goddess Pattini (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Gananath Obeyesekere

Though the mythicization of "history" is a well-known process, the "historization" of myth is less well recognized, even when evidence of it is equally clear and abundant.

I will use the term "demythicization" to characterize this and related processes whereby old myths are "rationalized" but are still used for much the same purposes as traditional myths -- as, for example, providing charters for action or to enhance the self-esteem of groups.

Demythicization should not be confused with Bultmann's "demythologizing," which denies the literal truth of myth.

By contrast, attempts to prove that the resurrection of Christ was an actual event are a case of demythicization.

I view demythicization as typically, thought not wholly, a modern phenomenon resulting from the impact of rational and scientific thinking on traditional mythology.

For traditional societies myths were true events, but these cannot be defended as empirically real within the naturalistic framework of modern rational and scientific thinking. Yet groups and individuals may still need to believe in them, and to permit this myths have to be demythicized. . .

. . .

To sum up, in all three types a process of demythicization has occurred whereby old myths are given new truth values to suit "rational" attitudes resulting from the impact of science on the contemporary world.

The myths are not in Bultmann's sense "demythologized": on the contrary, either they are invested with new truths, or the old truths are given new rationally acceptable proofs, or the old truths are looked upon as true in toto and therefore seen as evidence for historical or scholarly treatises.

Yet they also function as mythic charters for contemporary groups.

Scholarship, where it is found in such cases, is not true scholarship, since it disregards the logic of evidence and inference and requires a partial or complete suspension of critical thinking and skepticism.

"Scholarship" is simply as aspect of the demythicization process, not the goal of inquiry.

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

12-08-2009, 08:47 AM	#189
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	How about Paul starts preaching some revealed savior. Later, someone, let's call him Peter, starts claiming that he actually knew this savior and therefore his kung fu was better. Even later, Paul's protoge Mark, not being able to deny Peter's claims, simply trashes him and shows that, sure he knew a guy named Jesus, but was not any sort of actual witness to the defining event and Tai boxing was truly the best.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.