mikem

Most unlike you Chris! Yes I agree with you that it is hard to identify a particular place where Socrates has become the mouthpiece for Plato's views. I would say certainly by the time we reach Plato's middle period and the "Republic". Even in the earlier dialogues though, thinking of Euthyphro, Socrates is made to argue for a "Form" of Holiness. Does that go back to Socrates, or are the Forms a logical extension in Plato's hands of Socrates mission to find definitions? (Now that's really off topic!).

Coming back to Aristophanes. I have just found on my bookcase an essay called "Socrates in the Clouds " by Kenneth Dover in a book called "The Philosophy of Socrates - A collection of Critical Essays" edited by Gregory Vlastos, published by Notre Dame.

There is also an essay entitled "Our Knowledge of Socrates", by A R Lacey.

He points out that there are possible references to Socrates ethical doctrines in Euripides "Hippolytus".

Dina Noun

Juba Khan, in post #27.

I quoted his words in my post (post #32) that you are asking about. Here they are again.

Note that you yourself (post #30) responded to Juba Khan and yet didn’t raise any issue with his no-correspondence-between-Jesus-and-Julius-Caesar statement.

So anyway, as I was saying, Jabu Kahn has a valid point: comparing Jesus to someone like Julius Caesar is like comparing apples to oranges.

Toto

No one questions the existence of a guy called Shakespeare in Elizabethan England. The question is who wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

But getting back to the question originally asked in the opening post - is there a historical methodology that allows historians to separate the legend from the historical personage? I think that clearly the answer is no. This is because, except for Jesus, nobody cares a fig. Nobody really cares if there was a historical Socrates and Plato put words in his mouth, versus Socrates as a character in a literary creation by Plato (and maybe one other person.) Nobody really cares if there was a historical King Arthor at the heart of the legends, or if the legends have nothing but legend at their heart.

And the only reason people care about Jesus is that Christians are forced to affrim his historical existence each time they recite their Credo.

And of course real historians get a little irate when Christian apologists try to claim that there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, since this is simply not true. There is hard archeological evidence that backs up the claims for those prominent men that is totally lacking for Jesus, and documentary evidence that is much more relevant and comprehensive.

But why should the rest of us care whether there was a historical person at the core of these obvious legends? A historical Jesus is not necessary for understanding the birth and growth of Christianity from a secular point of view.

To quote (or paraphrase) Robert Price, if there was a Jesus of history, there is no more. Every trace of him has been lost or overwritten.

Just to put this into perspective.

No Robots

Wrong. All historians use generally accepted critical analysis, and all agree on Christ's historicity.

Wrong. Cite any historian who shares this view.

Wrong. People care about Jesus because his words and life leave an indelible impression on them.

Quote one of these "real historians". You can't, because all real historians affirm Christ's historicity.


I know why I care. Why do you care enough to dwell on this issue?


Cite an historian on this.

This is wishful thinking that flies in the face of every other writer on the subject.

Vorkosigan

• "I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata. You can, as mentioned above, do so if you have already decided who Jesus was. That works, of course, but it is apologetics rather than research." -- John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, p149.

<grabs popcorn, sits down to watch>

Vorkosigan

No Robots

Nothing you haven't seen before, Vork. Crossan is simply ignoring his own conclusions, to wit:

The further removed the [textual] layers are from the time of Jesus, the more Christian they become. Unlike earlier gospel layers, later ones tend to distance him from Judaism and "the Jews" (so John) or use Jewish texts and interpretive devices to reinvent Judaism as Christianity (so Matthew).

Excavating Jesus : Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts: by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed. p. 14:

Crossan, along with many others, is unwilling to take the final step away from pagan mystagogy and into a fully Jewish understanding of Christ.

Toto

No Robots - our exchanges have become completely unproductive. Your opposition to anything I write is noted.

Rick Sumner

Perhaps it's the product of not being American--Christian fundamentalism is essentially a non-issue, even here in Alberta, the most neo-con of Canadian provinces--but I could care less what Christians affirm in their credo. Perhaps you're too quick to assume that everyone is grinding the same axe you are.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

What axe?

DrDale

Whilst I'm not an historian, I believe most historians would strongly disagree with your sentiments as you seem to implying that history is unimportant. Indeed it is a rather strange statement to read coming from someone who is a moderator of a forum entitled "Biblical Criticism & History". I can only assume that uncovering the truth means little to you.

There's also that little thing regarding the impact that Christianity, for better or worse, has had on western society.

I'm assuming you're implying that those who involve themselves with the historical/mythical Jesus question are not "real" historians? Regardless of your beliefs, not knowing any "real" historians I really cannot respond to such a sentiment except to say that I am dubious of your assertion. I have great difficulty believing that there is only one historical figure whose existence has been assumed and never thoroughly questioned.

But you should care. If not for the sake of knowledge then at least for the sake of completeness. Indeed it seems absolutely absurd to even have an interest in religion whatsoever if one has no interest in the alleged founder of said religion. Would it make sense to write a book about modern day cults and contain nothing about said cults leaders?


Cheers, DrDale