Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 04-07-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
If I collected all the stories I've heard about Clark Kent and put them all together into a single narrative, you'd assume that Clark Kent existed, as did Superman, his alter ego? Or, would you accept Clark and dispose of Superman as an unbelieveable construct?

I understand your point. I look at it more like one can look at the Santa Claus myth. The myth can be traced back to the original gift-bearing Saint Nicholas whithout the sled, reindeer and elves.

Quote:

You're saying that all mythic creations are based upon historic individuals? Like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan? I'd be more likely to accept that many of the tales were invented whole cloth to illustrate or demonstrate some lesson the cultural elders thought important. No need to refer to an actual individual, just invent one, or elaborate upon an existing invention, and the story to go with it and use that to make one's point.

I'm not saying that all mythic creations are based on historic individuals, but most of them have their basis on either an individual, or they are the personification of a cultural archetype.

Quote:

If I remember correctly, this was very common with Judaic teachers. Indeed, I think the term "pesher" is fairly common with Judaic teachers, even as far back as the 1st century BCE.

If you have any information on that tradition or can recommend any books that elaborate on that and apply it to the MJ view, I'd be interested in reading up on that.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad · 04-07-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
I understand your point. I look at it more like one can look at the Santa Claus myth. The myth can be traced back to the original gift-bearing Saint Nicholas whithout the sled, reindeer and elves.

Yes, that's one approach and possibly the right one, but the issue is that you have no way of definitively knowing it _is_ the right one. It _could_ be that the whole thing was invented whole cloth.

Quote:

I'm not saying that all mythic creations are based on historic individuals, but most of them have their basis on either an individual, or they are the personification of a cultural archetype.

"Personification of a cultural archetype"? Man... That could be wholly (or holy) contructed. I'd say this statement also has the potential of being a false dichotomy. There may be other options you're not taking into consideration. In my experience, if someone asserts that "it's either this, or that," it's neither, or some mixture of "this" _and_ "that".

Quote:

If you have any information on that tradition or can recommend any books that elaborate on that and apply it to the MJ view, I'd be interested in reading up on that.

-Mike...

Here I apologize, Mike, because I don't have any ready recommendations. I'd suspect that Jacob Neusner would be an excellent resource, but I don't know which of his works would address it.

godfry

mike_decock · 04-07-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
Yes, that's one approach and possibly the right one, but the issue is that you have no way of definitively knowing it _is_ the right one. It _could_ be that the whole thing was invented whole cloth.

Yes, it could be wholly invented. So far I haven't been convinced by the arguments of a MJ but I am completely open to the idea and I have no trouble declaring my agnosticism on the issue.

Quote:

In my experience, if someone asserts that "it's either this, or that," it's neither, or some mixture of "this" _and_ "that".

And that's my approach to the NT. I think the approach of taking the "Christ out of Jesus Christ" is a more balanced approach, just like taking the "Santa out of Saint Nicholas". Start by removing the myth and see if there's a real person behind it.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad · 04-07-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

And that's my approach to the NT. I think the approach of taking the "Christ out of Jesus Christ" is a more balanced approach, just like taking the "Santa out of Saint Nicholas". Start by removing the myth and see if there's a real person behind it.

-Mike... [/B]

The problem is, Mike, that this method leaves you with the equivalent of Clark Kent, who is as much a construct as Superman, it just seems that he's a typical mortal.

As Vork is fond of pointing out, there is no satisfactory method of separating the historical from the mythical.

godfry

mike_decock · 04-07-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
The problem is, Mike, that this method leaves you with the equivalent of Clark Kent, who is as much a construct as Superman, it just seems that he's a typical mortal.

But nobody believes Superman is "real". IMO, that's reason enough to throw Superman AND Clark Kent into the mythical bin. That's not the case with Jesus.

Quote:

As Vork is fond of pointing out, there is no satisfactory method of separating the historical from the mythical.

Well, you can start by eliminating the magical elements and then start removing the elements that contradict the historical knowledge we have of the era. Whether what's left is "satisfactory" is a matter of taste.

-Mike...

Asha'man · 04-07-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
If the Sanhedrin trial had really taken place and they found Jesus guilty, he would have been stoned, not crucified.

I agree. He would have been stoned, and then the corpse hung from a tree, to be removed at nightfall.

godfry n. glad · 04-07-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
But nobody believes Superman is "real". IMO, that's reason enough to throw Superman AND Clark Kent into the mythical bin. That's not the case with Jesus.

You mean to tell me that you don't believe that there _ever_ was a mild-mannered newspaper reporter named Clark Kent? On what basis do you dismiss the possibility that Mr. Kent is fictitious?

Quote:

Well, you can start by eliminating the magical elements and then start removing the elements that contradict the historical knowledge we have of the era. Whether what's left is "satisfactory" is a matter of taste.

-Mike...

The only problem is that you've still got an a priori assumption that a real Jesus existed....without any support for it. If you throw out all the supernatural elements, what you get is a believeable construct. Even if you have a believeable construct, it does not necessarily mean that there was an historical individual underlying that construct.

There may have been an historical Jesus (putative founder of Christianity), but there is insufficient evidence to support such an assertion. All evidences of that historicity are based upon an a priori assumption that he did exist, not evidence of that existence.

In other words, those "many scholars" that you rely upon have based much of their study on wishful thinking or appeal to authority, neither a particularly strong source.

godfry

Ted Hoffman · 04-07-2003, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Yes, Toto, quite possibly that is just anti-Jewish polemic. But doesn't it also give the Jews a solid reason to think that Jesus could not be the messiah?

Majority of Jews, AFAIK, do not believe Jesus was the messiah.

mike_decock · 04-08-2003, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad
The only problem is that you've still got an a priori assumption that a real Jesus existed....without any support for it. If you throw out all the supernatural elements, what you get is a believeable construct. Even if you have a believeable construct, it does not necessarily mean that there was an historical individual underlying that construct.

True.

Quote:

There may have been an historical Jesus (putative founder of Christianity), but there is insufficient evidence to support such an assertion. All evidences of that historicity are based upon an a priori assumption that he did exist, not evidence of that existence.

I agree. Either way, an assumption has to be made. Why assume that there was no historical Jesus?

Quote:

In other words, those "many scholars" that you rely upon have based much of their study on wishful thinking or appeal to authority, neither a particularly strong source.

Like I said, relying on those "many scholars" is a starting place, good or bad.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad · 04-08-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
I agree. Either way, an assumption has to be made. Why assume that there was no historical Jesus?

-Mike...

Why assume that there was?

No assumption needs to be made at all.

godfry

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.