Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Almost all? It should be trivially easy, then, to name two legends with confirmed historical kernels that you regard as relevantly analogous to the gospel stories about Jesus.

You were talking about legends, and legends is what I asked about. Am I to infer that you can't see a difference between myths and legends.?

Sorry, I never knew there was any distinction between the two. Maybe you can clarify.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Doug Shaver, what do you make of the analogy to The Odyssey?

Not much, if the analogy as you present it is supposed to be with the gospels.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Doug Shaver, what do you make of the analogy to The Odyssey? [Suppose a manuscript of The Odyssey is dated to the 5th century BCE, it mentions a certain city of an alleged time and region, the city exists in modern times, and it has archaeological remains that can be dated to the 2nd century BCE. Do we accept The Odyssey manuscript to be evidence for the city existing in the 5th century BCE, or do we not?]

Not much, if the analogy as you present it is supposed to be with the gospels.

OK. I was hoping to illustrate and justify my negative judgment of the mythicist hypothesis of Nazareth.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You were talking about legends, and legends is what I asked about. Am I to infer that you can't see a difference between myths and legends.?

Sorry, I never knew there was any distinction between the two. Maybe you can clarify.

I can try. The following are relevant excerpts from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Quote:

[legend] An unauthentic or non-historical story, esp. one handed down by tradition from early times and popularly regarded as historical.

Quote:

[myth] A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

Full disclosure: The OED appends the following note to the second entry:

Quote:

Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms.

My comment: What is often done in general use should not be done in scholarly discourse when it is the credibility of the stories themselves that are at issue.

So, Abe, can you still see no difference? Do the two definitions seem to you to be merely saying the same thing in two different ways?

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK. I was hoping to illustrate and justify my negative judgment of the mythicist hypothesis of Nazareth.

I have never heard of any mythicist hypothesis about Nazareth.

hjalti · 07-06-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I want to add that I don't think that it's somehow absurd to think that Jesus actually came from Nazareth (although I disagree with that), but I find that the details and nuances of the issue point to it not being clear at all.

Maybe it would be more productive to write out the details of each hypothesis and how it would explain the relevant facts, and discuss the outline of the arguments, instead of going back-and-forth like this.

I am game for that. We could actually take this to Debate.org. It is a great medium, because pressure is applied to keep focus on the respective resolutions and present the arguments and counter-arguments fully. How about it? The resolution can be: "The town of 'Nazareth' existed at the reputed time of Jesus Christ." I am Pro, and you can be Con. If you are game, then register at Debate.org, tell me your username, and I will throw you a challenge. Or you can throw me a challenge (I am registered as "ApostateAbe").

I just looked at that site, and it seems just to be a place for formal debates. I'm not interested in that and wasn't thinking about anything like that.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK. I was hoping to illustrate and justify my negative judgment of the mythicist hypothesis of Nazareth.

I have never heard of any mythicist hypothesis about Nazareth.

That would be the hypothesis that Nazareth didn't exist at the alleged time of Jesus. It fits hand-in-glove with the Jesus-mythicist hypothesis, which is why I call it the "mythicist hypothesis of Nazareth." I am not sure what you would prefer to call it, but you know what I mean.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am game for that. We could actually take this to Debate.org. It is a great medium, because pressure is applied to keep focus on the respective resolutions and present the arguments and counter-arguments fully. How about it? The resolution can be: "The town of 'Nazareth' existed at the reputed time of Jesus Christ." I am Pro, and you can be Con. If you are game, then register at Debate.org, tell me your username, and I will throw you a challenge. Or you can throw me a challenge (I am registered as "ApostateAbe").

I just looked at that site, and it seems just to be a place for formal debates. I'm not interested in that and wasn't thinking about anything like that.

OK. The invitation remains open. I am in the middle of a similar debate with JonA here:

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-hi...ry-doomsday/1/

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sorry, I never knew there was any distinction between the two. Maybe you can clarify.

I can try. The following are relevant excerpts from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Full disclosure: The OED appends the following note to the second entry:

Quote:

Myth is strictly distinguished from allegory and legend by some scholars, but in general use it is often used interchangeably with these terms.

My comment: What is often done in general use should not be done in scholarly discourse when it is the credibility of the stories themselves that are at issue.

So, Abe, can you still see no difference? Do the two definitions seem to you to be merely saying the same thing in two different ways?

Thanks for clarifying. I have always used the two terms interchangeably. So, I hope you now know what I mean when I claimed that, "The way I see it, almost all legends have at least some bits of truth in them." I apologize for the confusion.

aa5874 · 07-06-2011, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Thanks for clarifying. I have always used the two terms interchangeably. So, I hope you now know what I mean when I claimed that, "The way I see it, almost all legends have at least some bits of truth in them." I apologize for the confusion.

Are you asserting that almost all legends have at least some bits of truth therefore there is truth about Jesus?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.