Jayhawker Soule

In part (see above). It seems to me that there are legends and legends, i.e., that there is a range of historicity between Troy and Tir Nan Og, and that one of the tasks of history is to locate these legends somewhere within this spectrum.

Toto

Nice quote. I admire Price, the way he can weave together deconstruction, Derrida, and 19th c. German theologians who took their cue from Hegel. It was those German theologians, colleagues of the brothers Grimm, who first saw the gospels as a sort of folk tale.

It might be worth noting that at the end of this review, Price asks why one should consider oneself a Christian, after rejecting the historical accuracy of the gospels and any supernatural elements they contain. This must have been written before Lüdemann decided to stop calling himself a Christian.

It might also be worth noting that Lüdemann still believes that he can uncover a historical Jesus, who was an apocalyptic prophet.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Vorkosigan

A city was found, which the majority of scholars identify with Troy; problem is, like the HJ, it is a matter of faith. In fact, if you read the bottom here, <a href="http://tenaya.cs.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/27.html" target="_blank">a convincing case is made by several scholars that our "Troy" is a construction of scholarship and the real Troy never existed</a>. Interesting, eh?

I agree that Jesus has to be located somewhere on the scale between fact and fiction, I just disagree that it is possible to do so with the "information" we have.

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule

Yes, it is interesting, and I generally concur with your evaluation.

Greg2003

Why is no one mentioning the considerable and impressive work of Joseph Campbell who showed quite clearly the universality of a mythical hero, often born of a virgin, who dies as a kind of atonement for the evil of the people and rises again as a symbol of the divine redemption of the people?

True, he doesn't dwell on Jesus. But considering the nature of his work, he hardly had to rub it in that he was undermining the historicity of jesus and the bible.

Tercel

But you're simply ignoring the fact that we do have the mythology your looking for. There were abundent amounts of such mythology being produced in the 2nd and 3rd centuries in the form of apocryphal gospels... talking crosses, giants, pointless miracles, you name it. The mythology is there, and exactly during the time period we might expect - a hundred plus years later when the people who saw the real thing are dead and the people they talked to are dead and everyone who knows the story knows it 10th hand from their neighbours down the road.

Nobody is saying "Jesus is exempt from mythologising". Jesus like other founders did get mythologised, and no one's denying it. The point of issue is that the 4 canonical gospels are sufficiently early that they have escaped from getting mythologised in any serious way.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Toto

No serious mythologizing? What does that mean? How much of the gospels do you think is not myth? Or do you really think that Jesus was born of a virgin, astounded the elders at the temple with his wisdom at age 12, fed multitudes on a few loaves and fishes, walked on water, raised men from the dead, and rose from the dead himself after three days, inter alia? That's not serious mythologizing?

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel:

Nobody is saying "Jesus is exempt from mythologising". Jesus like other founders did get mythologised, and no one's denying it. The point of issue is that the 4 canonical gospels are sufficiently early that they have escaped from getting mythologised in any serious way.

Tercel, prove it. That's an assumption. But it assumes what is at issue; namely, the relative truth of the gospels. You can call them "early" if you agree with conventional dating of the last quarter of the first century, and if you think that their record of execution in the time of Pilate is correct.

But that's what at issue here, Tercel. Is that general dating correct? Can we look at any specific part of the legend and say that it is true? Your reasoning is entirely circular -- we know they are early because they appear soon after Pilate, and we know Pilate date is true because the gospels are early. Break that circle, and furnish us with a demonstration of its truth.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Vorkosigan,
Prove what precisely?
That the Gospels are no so late as to be purely mythological? That's an obvious given as the supernatural items make up only a small proportion of the total and the historical narrative is preserved.
The truth of the Gospels? I doubt I could prove to your satisfaction the truth of the resurrection or any other miraculous accounts contained within the Gospels.

Can we call it a legend in the first place? I think your reasoning here is circular.

I think you however have the burden of proof in the issue. That there existed a Jesus-like figure who did the basics of teaching some stuff and getting himself crucified is not an improbable claim. Whether he did miracles or exactly what his teachings were etc might be an issue for discussion. However the level of proof required that someone simply existed is almost zero. A mention by a fourth century writer would have been sufficient. We are lucky enough to have four entire books about him written within 100 years of his life, plus numerous other references.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan,
Prove what precisely?
That the Gospels are no so late as to be purely mythological? That's an obvious given as the supernatural items make up only a small proportion of the total and the historical narrative is preserved.

Based on this reasoning, the Icelandic sagas should be historical. They are far less supernaturalized than the NT gospels, and have a much stronger narrative. Yet they are entirely fictional.....These reasons won't fly, Tercel.

Further, supernatural items do not make up a small amount of the total. They are part and parcel of the story, which is entirely religious propaganda.

Can we call it a legend in the first place? I think your reasoning here is circular.

Not at all. Wholly mythological founder figures are known. Others may well be based on history, but the story we have -- like that of Faust, for example, is a composite that bears only passing resemblence to the real figure.

I think you however have the burden of proof in the issue.

Right. All other religious founders are mythical, but mine is historical.

That there existed a Jesus-like figure who did the basics of teaching some stuff and getting himself crucified is not an improbable claim.

Sure isn't. The issue is whether the story we have reflects his life to any great degree.

However the level of proof required that someone simply existed is almost zero. A mention by a fourth century writer would have been sufficient. We are lucky enough to have four entire books about him written within 100 years of his life, plus numerous other references.

Assuming of course, that they were written within 100 years of his life. Your reasoning so far is circular. And no, a mention by a fourth century writer would not be sufficient to establish the story of a Founder Figure. I am not denying the existence of one -- indeed, apparently several -- figures under the Jesus legend. I am denying that it bears any relationship to the reality of those figures, not to mention denying that NT scholarship has any valid tools for pulling history out of the morass of legend.

Vorkosigan