I was replying to Rym's point. He said stories about many people were attached to one character. There is no evidence for this. What we have evidence of is lots of different people making shit up about one character.
What a character says is a different matter. Famous people collect quote attributions all the time. But stories about a person don't usually transfer from one character to another. It does happen, but there's no sign that it happened with Jesus.
That's a pretty fine point, isn't it? These seem almost equivalent statements:
Many stories (fictitious or not) about various people get attached to one character
Many people attach stories to one character
If Jesus' story incorporates elements of, say Zoroaster and Osiris, is that not "transferring from one to another"?
Probably? I thought (and a cursory wiki appears to confirm) he was 100% supernatural. Nobody is alleging there was literally a dude on earth named Osiris doing all that stuff, right?
Probably? I thought (and a cursory wiki appears to confirm) he was 100% supernatural. Nobody is alleging there was literally a dude on earth named Osiris doing all that stuff, right?
There are people alleging that.
But "probably" is the best answer you can give for negative questions about ancient historical figures. There probably wasn't a historical Osiris or Jesus.
I was replying to Rym's point. He said stories about many people were attached to one character. There is no evidence for this. What we have evidence of is lots of different people making shit up about one character.
What a character says is a different matter. Famous people collect quote attributions all the time. But stories about a person don't usually transfer from one character to another. It does happen, but there's no sign that it happened with Jesus.
That's a pretty fine point, isn't it? These seem almost equivalent statements:
Many stories (fictitious or not) about various people get attached to one character
Many people attach stories to one character
If Jesus' story incorporates elements of, say Zoroaster and Osiris, is that not "transferring from one to another"?
No, I don't think it is a fine point. First of all, the difference is clear. Many characters being combined into one usually happens for the purposes of simplifying a narrative. When adapting a (true or fictional) story into a new medium, often disparate characters are combined into one. It's like the Economy of Characters theory in script writing. Many stories being attached to one character usually happens to established characters, after the act of creation. Like James Bond or Superman. It is very rare that stories that once featured another character are then attached to James Bond or Superman. Instead, new stories are made up and told about them.
In this case, we have LOADS of evidence that lots of people just used the character of Jesus in their new stories about him, or to have him say things they wanted to be important, or for him to tell parables they themselves probably made up. How much evidence is there that stories about other people were attached to the character of Jesus? None that I've ever heard of.
Second, the idea that Jesus is a combination of other deities or mythic or legendary people misses the mark. Jesus is, for all intents and purposes, a mythical character written about by Greek authors. These authors used the literary influences and styles and tropes of the popular literature in their writings. They would also retell old stories about other characters, recasting Jesus in the main role.
Again, while this seems like a fine point, it isn't. This is a literary technique known as mimesis. It has nothing to do with history, but with the creative writing and art.
Third, and my final and main point:
There is a distinct and identifiable bias towards favoring arguments that, at their heart, find that the Gospels have true events in them, for which we can pick out "real" stories and about a "real" man called Jesus.
Once a scholar admits that the Gospels were written by authors who had no concern for recording any history, and were writing scriptures (texts for reading in church for the the purposes of religious teaching and guidance), they can then study what is really going on in the Gospels.
The way you state this line: "Many stories (fictitious or not) about various people get attached to one character" implicitly assumes that ANY story about Jesus could go back to ANY historic event featuring ANY historic person. But there is no evidence for that!
The second line: "Many people attach stories to one character" has no bias for treating the Gospels as history.
When you have a piece of historic writing, the FIRST thing to do is determine its genre. If the genre happens to be a history, then you can start determining how much of it might be true using other primary and secondary sources. The Gospels aren't history. Not even close. Study them as scriptures. Study them as literature. That's all you can get out of them.
And even if you want to study them as history, make a guess at how many primary sources for Jesus we have? None. Zero. And how many independent secondary sources for Jesus do we have? None. Zero.
How much evidence is there that stories about other people were attached to the character of Jesus? None that I've ever heard of. [...]
They would also retell old stories about other characters, recasting Jesus in the main role.
These statements seem contradictory to me.
There is a distinct and identifiable bias towards favoring arguments that, at their heart, find that the Gospels have true events in them, for which we can pick out "real" stories and about a "real" man called Jesus.
The way you state this line: "Many stories (fictitious or not) about various people get attached to one character" implicitly assumes that ANY story about Jesus could go back to ANY historic event featuring ANY historic person. But there is no evidence for that!
The second line: "Many people attach stories to one character" has no bias for treating the Gospels as history.
Sorry if I'm missing something here, but I don't really know what you're getting at. What bias? Who are we talking about? I was only using those two sentences as the essence of what I thought you were arguing.
I read your statement as "A didn't happen with Jesus, but B did." And A and B looked the same to me.
How much evidence is there that stories about other people were attached to the character of Jesus? None that I've ever heard of. [...]
They would also retell old stories about other characters, recasting Jesus in the main role.
These statements seem contradictory to me.
One is history, the other is literary. That's a massive factor that most people who talk about Jesus don't seem to grasp.
Everything we find in the earliest story about Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, can be explained using literary criticism, and the sources can be tracked back to the most popular Greek literature of the first century CE. It's clearly written as an extension of previous Jewish scripture.
And in the same book, nothing really fits the mold of the histories we have from the same era, written about the same kinds of people, in the same geographical area. There's no overlap.
How much evidence is there that stories about other actual people were attached to the character of Jesus? None that I've ever heard of. [...] They would also retell old stories about other fictitious characters, recasting Jesus in the main role.
Sort of. There's a big disconnect as we go down these statements:
There was a real historical person called Jesus and we read about his historical actions and sayings in the Bible.
The stories we now have about Jesus go back to a historical person who may or may not have been called Jesus.
The stories we now have about Jesus go back to multiple historical people who are now forgotten and anonymous, but the stories are based in historical events.
...
The author of the Gospel of Mark drew from many popular mythical, legendary and historic characters and stories in Greek literature, the Septuagint (Greek language old testament), and the Roman Empire generally, and from these sources created a narrative about a character derived from a mythical son of God as preached by Paul of Tarsus.
Again, we have no evidence of any anonymous or unknown historical people behind the stories now told about Jesus, but we have loads of literary evidence of Mark drawing from other sources. Rewriting existing sources was the classroom example of how writing in Greek was taught in the ancient world! The best writers didn't just copy, but reinterpreted the stories so they had different political or ethical properties and messages than their original. Mark's spin on Jesus, being theologically and politically distinct from the existing stories it uses as a source, is exactly the kind of writing one would expect in the new Jewish world after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, Josephus was writing popular histories of the Jews for a Roman audience that stuck to the party lines (his patron was the emperor, no less). Now, when historians want to get a good idea what Jewish revolutionaries and preachers were like in first century Israel, they know that Josephus will probably paint them a more probable picture than anything in the Bible.
The best writers didn't just copy, but reinterpreted the stories so they had different political or ethical properties and messages than their original.
MORE GOOD INFORMATION
Well, if one is to steal, steal from the forgotten masters.
I think my favorite part of the Dem debates has been watching a lot of Bernie Supporters attack Clinton for policies that Bernie also holds.
lol? where was that?
Mostly facebook people - Refinancing the debt was one of the popular points, as was putting Snowden to trial(both in favor). Some other smaller policy points get some play, but those are the big two.
Let's do a Ben Carson run-down since we already know Trump is a monster. 1. He claims that people who got shot basically deserved it because they 'just sat there' and he would have organized people to rush the shooter because he 'can only shoot one person at a time'. Ben Carson has delusions of grandeur. 2. He said that if only the poor, foolish Jews had kept their guns, the Holocaust wouldn't have been that bad. Ben Carson tries Jewsplaining 3.Literally everything else he says. Literally.
Hillary and O'Malley won this one. Hillary because all she needed to do was shore up her base (which she did), and O'Malley because his numbers can't go any lower. Since he's (finally) gotten some coverage, expect O'Malley to be at the next debate with Hillary and Sanders.
Webb showed off some decent foreign-policy chops (which most of the other candidates lack), but his views aren't popular outside of his home state. He also alienated anyone that wasn't a Webb fan. Expect him to disappear sometime between now and the next or third debate, but possibly show up again as the Veep, or even later as the Secretary of Defense nominee.
Granite-boy Chaffee should have stayed home. He likely won't get an invite to the next debate.
Sanders blew it. If anyone lost, it was him. His lack of preparation showed and it took him a while to get the ball rolling. Even then, he rambled, a lot, and wasn't able to bring that rambling back around to being relevant. His best moment was actually saying "black lives matter," but his worst was his answer to the gun control question; if anything, I expect his numbers from minority voters to decrease because of that gaffe. Sanders also spent the majority of the debate appealing to the voters he already has instead of trying to bring in anyone new that he needs. He had a lot to accomplish last night, and didn't get any of it done. Sanders has precious few chances left to wrestle the nomination away from Hillary, and if he continues doing what he did last night he won't.
Yeah he seemed very Republican-y to me too. I think its because he seemed so angry the whole time. He definitely seems saner than any of the Republicans running right now.
Chafee seemed like he'd be a dopey parody politician on Parks and Recreation.
Sanders blew it. If anyone lost, it was him. His lack of preparation showed and it took him a while to get the ball rolling. Even then, he rambled, a lot, and wasn't able to bring that rambling back around to being relevant. His best moment was actually saying "black lives matter," but his worst was his answer to the gun control question; if anything, I expect his numbers from minority voters to decrease because of that gaffe. Sanders also spent the majority of the debate appealing to the voters he already has instead of trying to bring in anyone new that he needs. He had a lot to accomplish last night, and didn't get any of it done. Sanders has precious few chances left to wrestle the nomination away from Hillary, and if he continues doing what he did last night he won't.
Yea I think he did pretty well (though I tuned in for the second half of the debate when he was warmed up) I just don't think he proved to anyone new that he was "Presidential".
Comments
- Many stories (fictitious or not) about various people get attached to one character
- Many people attach stories to one character
If Jesus' story incorporates elements of, say Zoroaster and Osiris, is that not "transferring from one to another"?As for Zoroaster, there appears to be more evidence that there was a person vaguely along those lines than there is that there was a Jesus.
But "probably" is the best answer you can give for negative questions about ancient historical figures. There probably wasn't a historical Osiris or Jesus.
In this case, we have LOADS of evidence that lots of people just used the character of Jesus in their new stories about him, or to have him say things they wanted to be important, or for him to tell parables they themselves probably made up. How much evidence is there that stories about other people were attached to the character of Jesus? None that I've ever heard of.
Second, the idea that Jesus is a combination of other deities or mythic or legendary people misses the mark. Jesus is, for all intents and purposes, a mythical character written about by Greek authors. These authors used the literary influences and styles and tropes of the popular literature in their writings. They would also retell old stories about other characters, recasting Jesus in the main role.
Again, while this seems like a fine point, it isn't. This is a literary technique known as mimesis. It has nothing to do with history, but with the creative writing and art.
Third, and my final and main point:
There is a distinct and identifiable bias towards favoring arguments that, at their heart, find that the Gospels have true events in them, for which we can pick out "real" stories and about a "real" man called Jesus.
Once a scholar admits that the Gospels were written by authors who had no concern for recording any history, and were writing scriptures (texts for reading in church for the the purposes of religious teaching and guidance), they can then study what is really going on in the Gospels.
The way you state this line: "Many stories (fictitious or not) about various people get attached to one character" implicitly assumes that ANY story about Jesus could go back to ANY historic event featuring ANY historic person. But there is no evidence for that!
The second line: "Many people attach stories to one character" has no bias for treating the Gospels as history.
When you have a piece of historic writing, the FIRST thing to do is determine its genre. If the genre happens to be a history, then you can start determining how much of it might be true using other primary and secondary sources. The Gospels aren't history. Not even close. Study them as scriptures. Study them as literature. That's all you can get out of them.
And even if you want to study them as history, make a guess at how many primary sources for Jesus we have? None. Zero. And how many independent secondary sources for Jesus do we have? None. Zero.
http://frontrowcrew.com/geeknights/20101028/spiritual-experiences-with-luke-burrage/
https://frontrowcrew.com/geeknights/20101230/the-historicity-of-the-bible-with-luke-burrage/
I read your statement as "A didn't happen with Jesus, but B did." And A and B looked the same to me.
Everything we find in the earliest story about Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, can be explained using literary criticism, and the sources can be tracked back to the most popular Greek literature of the first century CE. It's clearly written as an extension of previous Jewish scripture.
And in the same book, nothing really fits the mold of the histories we have from the same era, written about the same kinds of people, in the same geographical area. There's no overlap.
There was a real historical person called Jesus and we read about his historical actions and sayings in the Bible.
The stories we now have about Jesus go back to a historical person who may or may not have been called Jesus.
The stories we now have about Jesus go back to multiple historical people who are now forgotten and anonymous, but the stories are based in historical events.
...
The author of the Gospel of Mark drew from many popular mythical, legendary and historic characters and stories in Greek literature, the Septuagint (Greek language old testament), and the Roman Empire generally, and from these sources created a narrative about a character derived from a mythical son of God as preached by Paul of Tarsus.
Again, we have no evidence of any anonymous or unknown historical people behind the stories now told about Jesus, but we have loads of literary evidence of Mark drawing from other sources. Rewriting existing sources was the classroom example of how writing in Greek was taught in the ancient world! The best writers didn't just copy, but reinterpreted the stories so they had different political or ethical properties and messages than their original. Mark's spin on Jesus, being theologically and politically distinct from the existing stories it uses as a source, is exactly the kind of writing one would expect in the new Jewish world after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, Josephus was writing popular histories of the Jews for a Roman audience that stuck to the party lines (his patron was the emperor, no less). Now, when historians want to get a good idea what Jewish revolutionaries and preachers were like in first century Israel, they know that Josephus will probably paint them a more probable picture than anything in the Bible.
1. He claims that people who got shot basically deserved it because they 'just sat there' and he would have organized people to rush the shooter because he 'can only shoot one person at a time'. Ben Carson has delusions of grandeur.
2. He said that if only the poor, foolish Jews had kept their guns, the Holocaust wouldn't have been that bad.
Ben Carson tries Jewsplaining
3.Literally everything else he says. Literally.
Webb showed off some decent foreign-policy chops (which most of the other candidates lack), but his views aren't popular outside of his home state. He also alienated anyone that wasn't a Webb fan. Expect him to disappear sometime between now and the next or third debate, but possibly show up again as the Veep, or even later as the Secretary of Defense nominee.
Granite-boy Chaffee should have stayed home. He likely won't get an invite to the next debate.
Sanders blew it. If anyone lost, it was him. His lack of preparation showed and it took him a while to get the ball rolling. Even then, he rambled, a lot, and wasn't able to bring that rambling back around to being relevant. His best moment was actually saying "black lives matter," but his worst was his answer to the gun control question; if anything, I expect his numbers from minority voters to decrease because of that gaffe. Sanders also spent the majority of the debate appealing to the voters he already has instead of trying to bring in anyone new that he needs. He had a lot to accomplish last night, and didn't get any of it done. Sanders has precious few chances left to wrestle the nomination away from Hillary, and if he continues doing what he did last night he won't.
Chafee seemed like he'd be a dopey parody politician on Parks and Recreation.
Also, please let this happen.