Horatio Parker

When the issue is HJ/MJ such caution is not helpful, since "figure" can mean either one.

I regard those here who make these stronger statements with respect because they know the sources better than I do. I can't challenge them, and I suspect they may be right, but I use my own caution when stating my own beliefs.


The mythicism of the Gospels seems self-evident to me. That's the advantage of myth; historicity isn't required. A myth is a dramatic representation of an abstract truth. Have you suffered? Then perhaps you can identify with Jesus being condemned by crowed etc. (I can't believe I'm explaining this it's so obvious)

That's possible, but I've seen no evidence of it. They seem more informed than most. If you want to offer counter arguments, let's have at it. I'll listen.


This is an argument from authority.

I'm wary of discussing other ancient figures; they're all different. Other than having read Gilgamesh, I know nothing about him. There may be very good reasons for regard G as historical. I haven't a clue.

However, to speak of figures such as Alexander or Julius Caesar as comparable to the problems of a HJ is absurd. Miraculous events were attached to them, but those events have *nothing* to do with why they're remembered. Jesus is remembered because he was the Son of God! The miraculous and supernatural are intimately connected with his memory, most likely the cause of his being remembered at all. That puts the mythical portions of the story front and center. MJ lives whether or not there was a HJ and that makes the MJ evidence stronger.

Horatio Parker

As a dramatic representation of an abstract truth.

"Myths are things that never happened but always are"

-Joseph Campbell

beallen041

Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin seems to me to be an indisputably mythical character after investigating the matter about a year ago. Yet there is a whole nation that reveres him and he is a recently canonized Catholic Saint. The reason I believe him to be wholly mythical is that there is no evidence he ever existed and we would expect such evidence. Surely there were countless peasants who were male and of the appropriate age who walked past the shrine of Tonantzin (the Azteca Goddess) repeatedly during the year 1531. If we remove the supernatural from the account, we are left with a very human story -- and so do we say that any male campesino who walked past the appropriate spot and later spoke with the Bishop about a desire to build a Catholic shrine was "the historical Juan Diego?"

I don't think I would grant that as proving historical existence, but perhaps Jiri or Tom would.

In addition -- Clark Kent is explicitly and knowingly based on a real-live person named Harold Lloyd. We know lots about Harold Lloyd and we have oodles of stories about Clark Kent. Can we refer to Harold Lloyd as the "historical Superman" because of this?

I would argue that such a designation would be laughable to a modern person who understands the nature and genre of Superman stories. What evidence do we have that ancients thought about any individual who the Jesus story may have been "based" on any differently than we do about Harold Lloyd?

Stringbean

Really? And who is this Tom whats his face that has so miraculously put an end to the debate? A scholar? What? Or does he know jesus personally and got the inside info from the god man himself?

spin

The final question doesn't seem to reflect a comprehension of what Tom Verenna stated--even in his cited words in this response.

I didn't say anything about putting an end to the debate and I don't know who Tom Verenna is. I do know that he was receiving some misguided responses.

Stringbean

Thats cool...after further thought I think I know.....

Kapyong

Gday all,

Well, in traditional terms, a "myth" explains some truth - but in the guise of a story not literally true.

i.e. a myth carries truth.
But the common meaning nowadays is "not true".

At least, that's how I see it :-)


K.

aa5874

People here seem not to understand what a THEORY is.

ALL that is NEEDED for a theory is DATA to support it.

If the NT claimed Jesus was a MAN whose Father was Joseph and mother was Mary and there were writers who claimed that they ACTUALLY saw Jesus and INTERACTED with him then that DATA could be USED to support the HJ theory.

But, the DATA we have SUPPORT the MJ theory. That is ALL.

The NT and supposed contemporaries claim that Jesus was NOT a man, that he was FATHERED by a Ghost, was the Creator, was with SATAN on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that he WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected on the THIRD day and Ascended in a cloud.

That DATA supports the MJ theory. That is ALL.

Whether people BELIEVE Jesus did exist is IRRELEVANT if they have NO DATA to support their BELIEF.

No argument, NO THEORY, can be DEVELOPED without DATA.

The Sources that STATE Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost cannot be the same sources that show Jesus was a man.

Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Matthew 4, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12, and 1 Cor. 15 SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

DATA is ALL that is fundamentally NEEDED.

Now, where is the DATA to support HJ of Nazareth?

Which history book can I use to find DATA on the "Historical Jesus of Nazareth"?

How can I argue for an "Historical Jesus" WITHOUT DATA from antiquity?

I can't find any DATA in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger.

The HJ theory CANNOT be argued at all. There is NOTHING on HJ.

I will argue that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL because there is EXTANT DATA that he was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Romulus and Remus were HUMAN BROTHERS and BORN of the same WOMAN and yet it has been THEORISED that they were MYTHOLOGICAL simply because there is DATA to support MYTH Romulus and Myth Remus.

There is FAR MORE DATA for MYTH Jesus the Child of a Ghost, God, Creator and SEA-WATER walker.

maryhelena

Tom Verenna, as quoted above, is saying "My point, quite clearly stated over and over, is that any claims made with certainty about the figure of Jesus' historicity is going to fail any sort of investigation because like it or not, the possibility exists that a historical figure might have been at the core of the narratives. I am NOT saying that is the case, but the possibility is there. Lets reread that "a historical figure might have been at the core of the narratives". That is where Tom Verenna is wrong. And I'm very surprised that spin is allowing such a statement to go unchallenged. How many times has not spin argued the case against the use of 'historicity' and instead prefers the use of 'real'. Historicity requires evidence - which is not forthcoming in this case. A real gospel JC (however imagined minus his fancy clothes) is a position that is not subject to the type of present 'attack' by the ahistoricists/mythicists. It's when Tom Verenna, and the JC historicists, want to switch gears from 'real' to 'historical' that they are in deep water and will sink. Tom Verenna needs to gets his terminology correct if he wants to argue a case for a human figure relevant to the gospel JC figure. As long as he is going to present admonition to the ahistoricts/mythicists, on this forum, regarding a possibility for a 'historical' figure related to the gospel JC - he is going to get told he is talking nonsense.

Kapyong

Greetings all,

Thanks for the posts, folks - quite an interesting collection of writers and opinions :-)

But here we are - after a week, and five pages - and we still don't have any un-evidenced assumptions of the Jesus Myth theory.

Not one.

Even though archibald has been banging that drum for months (as have various others.) I'll assume he's busy, and G.Don too.

I still look forward to any examples of unevidenced assumptions made by MJers.


Kapyong