Vinnie

Kirby seems to have provided a good link to start with. I personally have no interest in searching for a historical Robin Hood and will not be doing so. I would get more amusement out of searching my pockets for lint at this point. But if any mythicist who likes to pose bedrock facts about Robin Hood is up to my challenge, then let the stratification of Hood material begin.

What Hood sources are you referring to? How old are they? When did Hood allegedly live? How do you obtain that information? This is part of my point. If there is or isn't a parallel I wan't to know why or why not.

And are you alluding to Paul? Is this the "Paul does not have any HJ material" or "Paul didn't believe in a HJ" approach? If so we must have a different opinion of that since my HJ reconstruction is starting with first-stratum Pauline material. I've kind of crossed Meier, Sander's and Crossans methodology to work out my own. They are all similar anyways though when you get right down to it.

And why does the argument from silence which posits "groups which neglect to emphasize historical details" warrant precendence over the host of literary data which does not neglect to emphasize historical details? The earliest material that I am aware of is the Pauline corpus. Is there anything earlier?

Vinnie

Celsus

Vinnie, how about bedrock facts about the Roswell incident?

1) A UFO crashed in 1947
2) At least 1, if not several, alien corpses were discovered
3) It was near Roswell
4) The discoverer was a rancher
5) An Air Force Major verified the extraterrestrial nature of the find
6) Earlier stories are simple and without exaggeration
7) There was a government conspiracy to cover up the find
8) There are eyewitnesses still alive today
9) There are newspaper reports from the date of the discovery concluding the discovery of the UFO
etc. . . .


Joel

Vinnie

Advanced civilization using worm-holes---warping space blah blah. Yeah, I've watched Star Trek too. I read the science books as well but I have no interest in Roswell and what happened or didn't happen there.

Given the vast distances in space, the youth of the universe, the improbability of advanced life in the universe, the impossibility of traveling faster than light, the odds of a spaceship worm-holing it and landing on earth (of all the other gazillions of places) all cause me to view Ufo's crash landing here as virtually impossible even if "theoretically possible". If you think there is a parallel between that impossible Roswell alien nonsense and the historicity and Jesus of Nazareth, well, feel free to demonstrate it.

Vinnie

Celsus

And a dying and resurrecting godman is less bizarre, how?

Vinnie

Who is reconstructing or defending the historicity of a dying and resurrecting godman? I'm not. If you are through with the red herrings we can proceed.

Vinnie

Celsus

Hey, I didn't say anything about wormholes, the probability of life, the vast distances of space etc. You introduced all of that. See the point?

Vinnie

No I don't see your point unless your trying to raise the tired argument which makes the *overly perceptive* observation that the Gospels have "miraculous material". Unfortunately for you, it is a historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a "miracle worker" so your argument becomes worthless. If this is what you were getting at, of course. If so, try reading E.P. Sanders on miracles in The Historical Figure of Jesus. That would be chapter 10. Pages 132 through 168. If not, I have no clue what point I am supposed to be seeing right now.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Speaking of miracles, Iason said this in another thread recently:

Looks like somebody may have forgoten about a miracle list..

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Didn't Crossan spend some twenty years studying the Jesus traditions before publishing his stratification analysis? What you are asking for would take a lot of time and effort, and while I think that it would be cool to have a scholarly apparatus of Robin Hood traditions, I don't think it's necessary in order to raise the question of how we tell truth from fiction in the legends of Robin Hood or of Jesus or of any figure. And, of course, I deny that there could be an exact parallel of situations, so I don't think that the value of looking at the Robin Hood situation (if there is any, which I doubt!) is to draw parallels.

So I propose that we forget Robin Hood for a second. The question is, how did you come to isolate the factoids on Jesus that you mention as being factual? What's your methodology? (By the way, this is a good question even if it were undeniable that there was some kind of Jesus guy.)

This info is just for fun. I'm not drawing parallels.

See The Robin Hood Project to read our sources about Robin Hood.

Piers Plowman, a 1377 Middle English allegorical poem, refers to "rhymes of Robin Hood." This is a reference to pre-existing various oral (and possibly written) stories about Robin Hood in the fourteenth century, now lost.

Dates of the time of a real Robin Hood range from roughly 1200 to 1350. Several of the possibilities are assayed here.

In the late 1500s, the Robin Hood story is set in the 1190s, at the time that King Richard is off on a crusade. An earlier Robin Hood ballad refers to a King Edward (three in succession ruled between 1272 and 1377).

I don't know if it's a question of parallels. Was there a historical Robin Hood? What does it mean to answer 'yes' or 'no' to that? If there was a historical Robin Hood, how do we tell which stories are true and which false?

I was yanking your chain a bit there. I stated that there are differences between the Robin Hood case and that of Jesus, and the difference that I mentioned is one that is taken unfavorably for the historicity of Jesus. I'm not advocating the argument from silence used to say that early Christians disbelieved in a HJ and have in fact argued against this argument from silence before on this board.

I am looking forward to your essay expounding on methodology and the epistolary record most eagerly.

best,
Peter Kirby

Celsus

Hi again Vinnie,
I am at a loss why you seem so impatient with this. The idea is simple: "Bedrock facts" taken from literary sources cannot be ascertained this far removed in history. To do so, we need external corroborating evidence. You illustrated this point perfectly by bringing up other improbability arguments against Roswell. While one cannot really refute the historicity of Jesus, one can certainly ask questions about how well the evidential arguments hold their ground, particularly in comparison with other historical/mythical characters. And the answer, simply, as Peter has explained, lies in a sound and rigourous methodology. What evidence do you have that Jesus was a "miracle worker"? Was he a charlatan or the real deal? How do we know? And on and on. You are arguing partially from authority and partially from induction, and so far have not made a case. However, I'll be quite happy to wait for your essay. Remember, refuting the mythicist case does not prove your version of the historical Jesus (inasmuch as you want your "bedrock facts"). I too lean towards an HJ, though I don't find the evidence for your "bedrock facts" at all convincing.

Joel