OK, well perhaps this is an appropriately polite stage at which to let the issue of Dave’s definition of a HJ drop, at least for the time being.
Though just to be clear, I was not implying any particular JC Myth theory.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the lack of credible and/or verifiable evidence means that we should not have a great deal of confidence in claims that so-called “scholars” all agree that a HJ must have existed.
We've been through this before. Yes, there is one fairly recent flavour of Jesus Myth that states he was a mythical cosmic figure in the first place. However it's also what's been used all along for what's sometimes now repackaged as the Jesus Legend.
Much as I respect Carrier and Doherty and their work on it, in all fairness, they don't get to redefine the word. They can, of course argue and support one flavour of Jesus myth, but they don't get to claim the word exclusively.
As I have pointed out before with references Carrier and Doherty are not "redefining the word". After all Frazer was stated as being among those "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" (ie a Christ Myther) by no less then Schweitzer in 1912 who reenforced this classification in 1931.
Remsburg using David Strauss and John Fiske wrote about historical vs philosophical myth stating "(i)t is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"
Herbert George Wood, in his 1934 Christianity and the nature of history put the Christ myth theory among "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."
The 1982 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia said the Christ Myth theory was the idea that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."
Yet despite all this the Christ Myth theory is talked about from the historical Jesus side as if it only encompass the idea Jesus the man didn't exist. Look at both Christ myth theory article at wikipedia and Jesus Myth article at rationalwiki and note how much space is devoted to the 'Jesus the man never existed' portion of the Christ myth theory as a whole.
Look at how many scholars define "Christ myth theory" as 'Jesus the man never existed' despite the evidence to the contrary. No it is not Carrier and Doherty who are trying to "redefining the word" but those who support the historical Jesus theory. It is they who have turned the term into something it isn't.
There was a little girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas in the late 19th century, and had an Aunt Em who was, without question, the girl who was the basis for the stories of the Wizard of Oz.
Is she a "historical Dorothy"? Or do we call Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz a fictional character?
There was a little girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas in the late 19th century, and had an Aunt Em who was, without question, the girl who was the basis for the stories of the Wizard of Oz.
Is she a "historical Dorothy"? Or do we call Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz a fictional character?
Alice had a real inspirer too. But Wonderland exists no more than Oz. Judaea, on the other hand, really did exist, and it had more peripatetic apocalypticists in it than Wonderland had Cheshire Cats. Was Jesus one of them?
But Kansas exists, and Dorothy was from there. And Dorothy's Aunt Em is as real as John the Baptist. Is the Oz she traveled to any less existent than the supposed Nazereth where Jesus supposedly grew up?
And isn't the Judea described by the Gospel writers pretty, um, "inconsistent" with the actual geography? Or so I've heard...
That you can write that proves my point. You sure as hell haven't heard that Baum's description of Oz is "inconsistent" with the actual geography of the place.
That you can write that proves my point. You sure as hell haven't heard that Baum's description of Oz is "inconsistent" with the actual geography of the place.
If we accept the proposition that Oz ~ Kansas, a staple belief of modern Ozianity, it most certainly is inconsistent with the actual geography. Is the road Dorothy ran away down the "historical" yellow brick road? Which towns form similar geographical relationships to Munchkinland and the Emerald City?
If we accept the proposition that Oz ~ Kansas, a staple belief of modern Ozianity, it most certainly is inconsistent with the actual geography. Is the road Dorothy ran away down the "historical" yellow brick road? Which towns form similar geographical relationships to Munchkinland and the Emerald City?
Yes, because the things that happen there don't happen in Kansas. But some of the things that happen in the Gospels did indeed happen in Judaea, and some didn't, like people being raised from the dead, or (more remarkable still) raising themselves from the dead. (I'm practicing that for when I need it.) But wandering apocalyptic preachers getting whacked has a certain plausibility about it.
Yes, because the things that happen there don't happen in Kansas. But some of the things that happen in the Gospels did indeed happen in Judaea, and some didn't, like people being raised from the dead, or (more remarkable still) raising themselves from the dead. (I'm practicing that for when I need it.) But wandering apocalyptic preachers getting whacked has a certain plausibility about it.
I think you'll find that Kansas does also exist. The historical Oz theory states that Dorothy never actually left Kansas, but perceived a distorted child's viewpoint of the truth. Thus Almira Gulch becomes a Wicked Witch out to steal her dog... and her shoes for some reason. Et cetera. Children running off and fabricating wild imaginations also have a certain plausibility, do they not?
BUT, deciding to believe everything that isn't supernatural in a story -- not because it's attested as actually happening, but just because it wouldn't be impossible or even uncommon -- still smacks me as supremely gullible.
I mean, fer fork's sake, watch me do the same for Lovecraft:
- the names of various places he describes are actually quite consistent with the Algonquian languages spoken in the area. So, you know, some river being called the Miskatonic is quite believable, even though we no longer know it by that name and have no idea what river it was
- the geography of the places is actually quite mundane and believable. E.g., Innsmouth being around a small gulf sheltered from the waves by a large reef is actually making sense.
- there are multiple sources mentioning the events, such as Francis Wayland Thurston AND Gustaf Johansen for the Call Of Cthulhu. (Of course it was written by Francis Wayland Thurston. It says so right in the beginning) And they cite sources we no longer have, such as the eminent professor Angell, but, you know, there is no reason to doubt that someone would study ancient cults or dream disturbances or whatnot. They're quite normal things to study in the era.
- some of the events described are actually consistent with advanced general relativity explanations, rather than supernatural events. (See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8144) Plus, it's doubtful that they'd make up stuff like that, when none of the sources cited would plausibly have a Ph.D. in physics.
- we can know that some of the primary sources are real and can partially reconstruct their content from the multiple secondary sources quoting them. E.g., the Necronomicon probably did say, "That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons death itself may die." It also sounds quite believable as a liturgical formula assuring the believers of eternal life. Seriously, it's no more stupid than Christians' idea of using death against death.
- some of the cults described are actually quite believable as real early 20'th century cults or rather distortions of such cults, if you strip them of the supernatural elements. And such cults did pop up at the time all over the place (see for example, Wicca.)
E.g., the Esoteric Order Of Dagon doesn't sound all that unbelievable as a cult where sailors and fishermen just believed in an afterlife under the sea. In fact, it strikes me as a rather natural rationalization to get over the grief of those drowned or buried at sea. And it's not too off the mark as a revival and distortion of ancient sea god cults.
Of course, I'm not asking you to believe that the good people of Innsmouth were having sex with fish people or actually transforming into fish. Why, clearly, that's just confabulation based on hearsay. But the rest must be true because it's not impossible.
- We have sources confirming the places and some detail without telling the same story, so, you know they must be independent. And they're first person accounts from eye witnesses too.
E.g., The Worst Hotel...
... clearly confirms the existence of Innsmouth, the horrible fish smell everywhere, and the odd look of the locals, but it's not telling the same story as The Shadow Over Innsmouth. It's in the wrong season, for example, and the author isn't chased by hostile fishmen or anything. In fact, what finally drives him off is a, heh, TOO friendly offer from one of the locals.
We also have a version from one of the locals, who took part in the EOD meetings and obviously seeks approval from "Father Dagon" for his romance.
So, you know, yippee, an eye witness.
Or speaking of first hand accounts, check this one out:
Not only it confirms stuff like what was on page 751 of the Necronomicon, but it contains details that contradict the official story, so, you know, it must be independent. Such as that some romance was involved between the holy mother of god Lavinia Whateley and Yog Sothoth, and it continued long after her children were born, whereas the Lovecraft version makes it sound more like just a one time summoning. But we can discard the supernatural elements, obviously, so it was probably just some guy claiming to invoke and serve as a vessel for Yog Sothoth, which is quite common in many pagan cults.
Or this one...
... not only confirms the existence of those books, but can be interpreted as saying that the Kitab Al Azif and the Necronomicon were actually not the same book. Which contradicts the canon, so, you know, it's not someone just repeating a story.
- We have hostile accounts. E.g., the ones already mentioned above, or such accounts as this one:
... which refers to the cultists' beliefs as "their folly" or their rituals as "mindless prayer". Plus at least one guy who posted it calls them loathsome and claims to warn people of their activities.
- We can know there was an oral tradition or some transcribing involved, because sometimes words are added, removed or changed. E.g., this one:
... renders the well known phrase as, "And it is said that is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons you may find that even death may die." I've highlighted the words that were added to the version in the work of the Arab scholar Abdul Alhazred.
Or the one I mentioned before transcribes Cthulhu instead of the burning deity Cthugha.
- We know there was an organization called the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society which unearthed a wealth of stories and religious songs of such cults. And, hey, it must be historical because it says so right in the name. (This is basically the same argument as, "Luke is a great historian because he says so.") So, you know, we have data from actual historians from the period.
- We can know that at least some of those songs must be from actual cult members because, come on, who else sings cheerfully about some ancient deity rising to kill everyone and terminate mankind? Clearly it's an apocalyptic cult. Or who else makes their kids sing about being killed by a shoggoth? Normal people don't do that kind of thing.
- The names of some of the organizations singing those songs include "The Arkham Carollers" or "The Dunwich Children's Choir", which clearly is further confirmation that those places actually existed.
Etc.
And actually I may have undermined my own point, because the above is actually WAY better supportable and better scholarship than the HJ reconstructions
What is described to happen in Kansas that don't happen in Kansas?
Don't confuse the land of Oz with Kansas (nor books with the movie, although I don't think that part matters much). Kansas has tornados, and houses get lifted off their foundation. Kansas at the turn of the 19th century, was absolutely a very gray prairie, and people lived in one room shacks.
And in subsequent books, we discover that Kansas had rail, and Dorothy traveled by rail to San Francisco, and then by steamer ship to Australia. When she got back to San Francisco, there was an earthquake. These are all things that were consistent with the area at the time. In fact, we actually have good reason to believe that the earthquake that is reported as hitting San Francisco in Dorothy of Oz actually really did happen!*
Your fixation on Oz is a strawman. I've never said anything about the land of Oz itself being real. We can consider it as fictional as characters rising from the dead or the town of Nazareth where Jesus was claimed to hang out. They don't exist.** So, indeed, ignore the magic and miracles, and focus on the realism.
And back to it: there was a Dorothy, we know, who inspired the stories. She even resembled in some respects, the non-magical features of the girl in the stories (I don't know if she ever traveled to San Francisco or Australia, though, although she certainly could have - it is possible). So do we call her the "Historical Dorothy"? Why or why not?
*The initial thought is that it is the 1906 SF earthquake, but an article in the Baum Bugle a year or so ago argued it probably wasn't, and that Baum was actually referring to a weaker earthquake in 1904 or so
**Then again, the descriptions of Oz do not, unlike the descriptions of Judea in the bible, contain things that are factually incorrect, like towns and lakes being in the wrong location. Sure, Oz is completely unverifiable, but nothing can be said to be false about it. In fact, in Emerald City of Oz, we learn that the reason we can't see the land of Oz is because Glinda has enchanted it to be invisible to our eyes. You are free to dismiss it all with an a-priori rejection of magic, and I don't disagree, but the bible has problems that go beyond just the magic and miracles. Even the realistic parts of the bible contain inaccuracies of fact, such as geography. Not true for the Wizard of Oz.
There was a little girl named Dorothy who lived in Kansas in the late 19th century, and had an Aunt Em who was, without question, the girl who was the basis for the stories of the Wizard of Oz.
Is she a "historical Dorothy"? Or do we call Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz a fictional character?
BUT, deciding to believe everything that isn't supernatural in a story -- not because it's attested as actually happening, but just because it wouldn't be impossible or even uncommon -- still smacks me as supremely gullible.
Are you taking the starting point that the Bible is history or something?
The Wizard of Oz is a mostly fictional story inspired by a real live person from a real live place.
The bible is a mostly fictional story (yes?) inspired by maybe-a real live person from a real live place.
If we conclude that the "maybe" in the second sentence above is a yes, then people want to call that a "historical Jesus." However, if we do that, then the first and second statements are the same. If you call the second a "historical Jesus," then why isn't the first a "Historical Dorothy"?
Piggy, considering the silly stuff you've been posting over the years on this topic, you haven't even started to show that you can make the judgment of what's good scholarship and what's crank stuff. So I hope I can be excused if I don't even start to take that judgment seriously. But, anyway, if you have something of substance to post (for a change), please do so. Otherwise, yeah, yeah, I get it, it's easier to do that kind of rationalization about others than to actually have anything useful to say.
Are you taking the starting point that the Bible is history or something?
The Wizard of Oz is a mostly fictional story inspired by a real live person from a real live place.
The bible is a mostly fictional story (yes?) inspired by maybe-a real live person from a real live place.
If we conclude that the "maybe" in the second sentence above is a yes, then people want to call that a "historical Jesus." However, if we do that, then the first and second statements are the same. If you call the second a "historical Jesus," then why isn't the first a "Historical Dorothy"?
Perhaps I am not following this. But I think you and I are agreeing on this?
That is - the only real criteria for anyone to be a real historical Jesus (or "Dorothy", though I know nothing about the Wizz of Oz film/story), is simply that a real living individual gave rise to what subsequently became 1st century AD Christianity.
If it doesn’t sound too much like raking back over the coals of what I said earlier - I would say that individual HJ also had to be a preacher or leader of some kind (not just any old private individual of the day).
But apart from that, I see no reason why that individual would necessarily need to have done any of the things later attributed to him by the anonymous writers of the biblical literature ... all those biblical stories (inc. Paul) may be entirely fictional.
As I said before, one clue to that scenario is the fact that all the gospel writing comes from anonymous individuals none of whom had ever met Jesus and all of whom considered the HJ to have died at some unspecified time in what was by then the quite distant past. None of those authors really knew who Jesus was. I suspect the same may apply to the letters of Paul … afaik, the earliest copy we have of anything from Paul is from about the start of the 2nd century (or quite probably later) … would a wandering street preacher such as Paul really have been able to write such educated accounts? It seems to me, that like the gospels, Paul’s letters would more likely have been written by someone else in the name of Paul (ie so-called “Pseudepigrapha”?)
Are you taking the starting point that the Bible is history or something?
The Wizard of Oz is a mostly fictional story inspired by a real live person from a real live place.
The bible is a mostly fictional story (yes?) inspired by maybe-a real live person from a real live place.
If we conclude that the "maybe" in the second sentence above is a yes, then people want to call that a "historical Jesus." However, if we do that, then the first and second statements are the same. If you call the second a "historical Jesus," then why isn't the first a "Historical Dorothy"?
If L. Frank Baum had decided to write the Oz books as a result of knowing a little girl who was carried off in a tornado, or who had a dream about a great wizard, then we could talk about the historical Dorothy.
In fact, we don't need to speculate -- we could take the Alice books instead by Lewis Carroll. There was a historical Alice, upon whom the fictional character was based. And there's no problem distinguishing the two.
Scholars agree, with very good reason, that Jesus existed, and that he was executed by Pilate. That guy is the historical Jesus.
A wide variety of myths later sprang up around Jesus. But those later stories don't somehow make the man into a fictional character, just as the life and death of the man doesn't make all the myths into history.
Piggy, considering the silly stuff you've been posting over the years on this topic, you haven't even started to show that you can make the judgment of what's good scholarship and what's crank stuff. So I hope I can be excused if I don't even start to take that judgment seriously. But, anyway, if you have something of substance to post (for a change), please do so. Otherwise, yeah, yeah, I get it, it's easier to do that kind of rationalization about others than to actually have anything useful to say.
No, Hans, it's just that you're not qualified to judge.
You seem to think it's "silly", for instance, that Paul's letters clearly demonstrate that he viewed Jesus as a living, breathing man who was crucified in Jerusalem and who had biological family.
And this despite my showing you the quotes which clearly prove this fact.
I've had plenty "useful to say" on these threads, but you go blithely on with your little conspiracy theories, ignoring the overwhelming evidence of real scholarship.
You look at the hard work of historians and archaeologists, and simply dismiss it, preferring your "In Search Of" version instead.
[SNIP]
But that's not going to stop me from posting.
Granted, I have very little time, but maybe I can stick around awhile.
It's a shame to leave folks in the hands of your ilk... the Jesus Truthers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) And they cite sources we no longer have, such as the eminent professor Angell, but, you know, there is no reason to doubt that someone would study ancient cults or dream disturbances or whatnot. They're quite normal things to study in the era.
) Plus, it's doubtful that they'd make up stuff like that, when none of the sources cited would plausibly have a Ph.D. in physics.
