Steven DiMattei: Case Against Mythicists

[DCHindley]

DiMattei is drawing an important distinction here. Just because someone's image was radically changed after their death doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Would that conclusion change if the Jesus of the Gospels had been depicted as eating a lot of spinach before his miracles?

Would George Washington stop existing if it was shown that he did not, in fact, admit to cutting down his father's cherry tree?

Questioning whether George Washintoon really admitted to chopping down the cherry tree is the kind of "historical revisionism" that is DESTROYING the United States of America (insert tooting of duck call). That being said, I heard that the real way George let out that he had cut down that cherry tree was his dad noticed a brand new cherry wood bookshelf in his study, and saw that it was stocked with handwritten manuscripts containing the sermons of Solomon Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent and George Whitefield. It is said that he mused that the tree had been blocking his view of the upcoming American Revolution anyhow, and he warmly embraced his son, had a heart attack, and died, leaving George ten slaves in his will. Now it is this kind of truth, and not the vicious race baiting lie that George's own will had specified that he wanted to emancipate his slaves at the same time as those of his wife's dower slaves from her first marriage upon her death. That kind of untruth is what makes this great nation ... well ... so darn great!

DCH

[stevencarrwork]

DiMattei is drawing an important distinction here. Just because someone's image was radically changed after their death doesn't mean that they didn't exist.

Would that conclusion change if the Jesus of the Gospels had been depicted as eating a lot of spinach before his miracles?

Would George Washington stop existing if it was shown that he did not, in fact, admit to cutting down his father's cherry tree?

Still going strong with the Popeye defense.....

Popeye was based on a real person, so Popeye existed! That's game over, mythicists.

[Chris Weimer]

Would that conclusion change if the Jesus of the Gospels had been depicted as eating a lot of spinach before his miracles?

Would George Washington stop existing if it was shown that he did not, in fact, admit to cutting down his father's cherry tree?

Still going strong with the Popeye defense.....

Popeye was based on a real person, so Popeye existed! That's game over, mythicists.

No, Popeye isn't real, but, if he really was based on a real person (i.e. Frank Fiegel), then of course that doesn't invalidate Fiegel's existence.

However, he wasn't based on a real person. At best, Popeye could be "inspired" by Fiegel, but that doesn't mean he was "based" off him. An example of a fictional character based off a real person would be William Wallace. His fictional portrayal in Braveheart does not automatically mean that the real Wallace never existed.

It's a subtle distinction that seems to be lost on the agenda-driven mythicist crowd.

[maryhelena]

Would that conclusion change if the Jesus of the Gospels had been depicted as eating a lot of spinach before his miracles?

Would George Washington stop existing if it was shown that he did not, in fact, admit to cutting down his father's cherry tree?

Still going strong with the Popeye defense.....

Popeye was based on a real person, so Popeye existed! That's game over, mythicists.

No, Popeye isn't real, but, if he really was based on a real person (i.e. Frank Fiegel), then of course that doesn't invalidate Fiegel's existence.

However, he wasn't based on a real person. At best, Popeye could be "inspired" by Fiegel, but that doesn't mean he was "based" off him. An example of a fictional character based off a real person would be William Wallace. His fictional portrayal in Braveheart does not automatically mean that the real Wallace never existed.

It's a subtle distinction that seems to be lost on the agenda-driven mythicist crowd.

The "agenda-driven mythicist crowd"?

"....a fictional character based off a real person.........................does not automatically mean that the real (person) never existed"???

I'm sorry but that reads like double-dutch to me!

If what you are to proposing is that the created figure of the gospel Jesus was based upon a real flesh and blood figure, you have actually not taken this debate anywhere. It's historicity that is under discussion in the historicist verse ahistoricist/mythicist debate not existence. The historicicts can claim existence for their Jesus figure, however imagined, they cannot claim historicity i.e. they cannot produce historical evidence for their claim. They might argue plausibility but that does not move forward the search or understanding of early christian origins.

If what you are proposing is that the created figure of the gospel Jesus was inspired by a real flesh and blood figure - then why stop at one such flesh and blood figure? Created literary figures don't have to be inspired by only one flesh and blood figure.

James Bond

Creation and inspiration

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[2] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[3] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.[2]

[ficino]

Are we agreed on what "historical" means? I thought, on the lines of colloquialisms like "s/he went down in history," "historical" means "as recorded in sources that can plausibly be taken as factual." Or something like that. Joe the Farmer in the chora of Galilee in the first century is by definition not "historical" if there are no records about him. Terms like "real, factual, flesh-and-blood" could be used, but not historical. We can say, we do not know whether the flesh-and-blood Joe the Farmer existed, but I do not understand "we do not know whether the historical Joe the Farmer existed." If an inscription or the like comes to light that gives the world for the first time knowledge about Joe the Farmer, we can then say that he "entered history" and became "historical." On the other hand, if we uncover a papyrus on which there are stories of a Joe the Farmer who preached and worked miracles and got into trouble with the authorities, we can say that the account, and the character it portrays, have now entered history, but we're not yet in a position to say 1) whether a flesh-and-blood or real Joe existed, or 2) whether Joe was "historical." That's because the genre of the written work on the papyrus in my thought experiment is not one that belongs to the set of materials that are trustworthy conveyors of fact.

Do I have these distinctions right?

[maryhelena]

Are we agreed on what "historical" means? I thought, on the lines of colloquialisms like "s/he went down in history," "historical" means "as recorded in sources that can plausibly be taken as factual." Or something like that. Joe the Farmer in the chora of Galilee in the first century is by definition not "historical" if there are no records about him. Terms like "real, factual, flesh-and-blood" could be used, but not historical. We can say, we do not know whether the flesh-and-blood Joe the Farmer existed, but I do not understand "we do not know whether the historical Joe the Farmer existed." If an inscription or the like comes to light that gives the world for the first time knowledge about Joe the Farmer, we can then say that he "entered history" and became "historical."

OK

On the other hand, if we uncover a papyrus on which there are stories of a Joe the Farmer who preached and worked miracles and got into trouble with the authorities, we can say that the account, and the character it portrays, have now entered history,

No - Joe the Farmer stays within the historical document - he does not enter history i.e. does not have historical evidence for his existence.

but we're not yet in a position to say 1) whether a flesh-and-blood or real Joe existed, or 2) whether Joe was "historical." That's because the genre of the written work on the papyrus in my thought experiment is not one that belongs to the set of materials that are trustworthy conveyors of fact.

Best to keep 'historical' for evidence of existence.

Do I have these distinctions right?

Pretty close....

The gospel figure of Jesus remains within the pages of ancient literature. Postulating that this figure relates, in someway, to a historical figure has to be established via historical evidence for the proposed historical figure. Anything else is faith based.

[ficino]

Are we agreed on what "historical" means? I thought, on the lines of colloquialisms like "s/he went down in history," "historical" means "as recorded in sources that can plausibly be taken as factual." Or something like that. Joe the Farmer in the chora of Galilee in the first century is by definition not "historical" if there are no records about him. Terms like "real, factual, flesh-and-blood" could be used, but not historical. We can say, we do not know whether the flesh-and-blood Joe the Farmer existed, but I do not understand "we do not know whether the historical Joe the Farmer existed." If an inscription or the like comes to light that gives the world for the first time knowledge about Joe the Farmer, we can then say that he "entered history" and became "historical."

OK

On the other hand, if we uncover a papyrus on which there are stories of a Joe the Farmer who preached and worked miracles and got into trouble with the authorities, we can say that the account, and the character it portrays, have now entered history,

No - Joe the Farmer stays within the historical document - he does not enter history i.e. does not have historical evidence for his existence.

No, I said the "character it portrays."

but we're not yet in a position to say 1) whether a flesh-and-blood or real Joe existed, or 2) whether Joe was "historical." That's because the genre of the written work on the papyrus in my thought experiment is not one that belongs to the set of materials that are trustworthy conveyors of fact.

Best to keep 'historical' for evidence of existence.

Do I have these distinctions right?

Pretty close....

The gospel figure of Jesus remains within the pages of ancient literature. Postulating that this figure relates, in someway, to a historical figure has to be established via historical evidence for the proposed historical figure. Anything else is faith based.

I think we're using these terms pretty much in the same way.

[ficino]

How about this further thought?

P = "The flesh and blood Joe the Farmer existed." P and ~P, its negation, are assertive claims, one positive, one negative.

On the other hand, can we say that "There was no historical Joe the Farmer" boils down to an attack on the basis for holding P? It is not a negation of P.

Denial of the historicity of some figure, then, is not an assertive claim. It has the logical status of a challenge to, or a raising of doubts against, an assertive claim.

An argument between someone who asserts P (Joe the Farmer was a flesh and blood guy) and someone who asserts ~P (there was no flesh and blood Joe the Farmer) is a symmetrical persuasion dialogue, a dispute. Each side has a commensurate burden of proof and commitment stores of roughly similar extents. (It's hard obviously to see the basis on which the ~P chap can construct an argument.)

An argument between someone who says that Joe the Farmer is historical, and someone who denies this, is not a symmetrical dialogue. It's asymmetrical, a dissent. The person who denies the historicity of Joe only has the burden of casting doubt; it's not a burden commensurate with that faced by his opponent, the proponent of historicity. The commitment store of the denier may be smaller than that of the affirmer.

I think this is what DiMattei may have been wanting to say, and to point out the dangers of confusing these two kinds of dialogue.

[as an aside, I add that I don't think srd44 is a troll by any def. of troll, and I understand that srd44 does not make any professions of faith in Jesus or God.]

[maryhelena]

How about this further thought?

P = "The flesh and blood Joe the Farmer existed." P and ~P, its negation, are assertive claims, one positive, one negative.

On the other hand, can we say that "There was no historical Joe the Farmer" boils down to an attack on the basis for holding P? It is not a negation of P.

Denial of the historicity of some figure, then, is not an assertive claim. It has the logical status of a challenge to, or a raising of doubts against, an assertive claim.

An argument between someone who asserts P (Joe the Farmer was a flesh and blood guy) and someone who asserts ~P (there was no flesh and blood Joe the Farmer) is a symmetrical persuasion dialogue, a dispute. Each side has a commensurate burden of proof and commitment stores of roughly similar extents. (It's hard obviously to see the basis on which the ~P chap can construct an argument.)

An argument between someone who says that Joe the Farmer is historical, and someone who denies this, is not a symmetrical dialogue. It's asymmetrical, a dissent. The person who denies the historicity of Joe only has the burden of casting doubt; it's not a burden commensurate with that faced by his opponent, the proponent of historicity. The commitment store of the denier may be smaller than that of the affirmer.

I think this is what DiMattei may have been wanting to say, and to point out the dangers of confusing these two kinds of dialogue.

[as an aside, I add that I don't think srd44 is a troll by any def. of troll, and I understand that srd44 does not make any professions of faith in Jesus or God.]

Yes, I'll go along with that. The ahistoricists/mythicists cannot prove, establish, that there was no flesh and blood Jesus - however this figure is presumed to have relevance to the Jesus of the gospel story. Why waste energy, and valuable time, in trying to disprove something that you, ahistoricists/mythicists, deny? Never made sense to me....

The aim of the ahistoricists/mythicist should be to search for early christian origins.The historicist verse the ahistoricist/mythicist debate is never going to be productive - it's nothing more than throwing stones at one another - i.e. one interpretation of the NT verse another interpretation of the NT story.

Bottom line is that the Jesus historicists cannot establish their claim. Once the ahistoricists/mythicists have come to that decision - move on, move away from useless Bible punching with the Jesus historicists.

[Chris Weimer]

If what you are to proposing is that the created figure of the gospel Jesus was based upon a real flesh and blood figure, you have actually not taken this debate anywhere. It's historicity that is under discussion in the historicist verse ahistoricist/mythicist debate not existence. The historicicts can claim existence for their Jesus figure, however imagined, they cannot claim historicity i.e. they cannot produce historical evidence for their claim. They might argue plausibility but that does not move forward the search or understanding of early christian origins.

Except for Tacitus, and Suetonius, and Josephus, and excluding actual historical reconstruction from Jesus traditions and Paul, but I think you'd like to dismiss those a priori since they're Christian.