Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

oleg wrote: There's truth. And then, there's nonsense. .

But do you know the difference and why?


Noahs flood is 100% mythology, yet it has a possible historical core of a man going down a flooded Euphrates on a barge, when studied in detail.

The flood/s are attested as to when the mythology originated. So a flood is historical in said mythology.

oleg wrote: If we do not know when a person died, how can we write, "soon after, or long after" his death?

The factor here is plausibility, and the work done here places his death in a general area during the reign of Pilate and Caiaphas.

Like it or not, jesus has historicity as existing, and until credible criticism can show otherwise which It has not and its been tried by the smartest people out there for a hundred years, and not one single credible replacement hypothesis has been brought forward to explain the evidence you seem to know little about.

that no physical evidence exists to support a claim, that a human named Jesus lived, as has been described in the gospels.

Not required. You don't seem to understand how historicity is determined.

Many people who's historicity is not questioned at all, have no physical evidence of any kind.

I reject, with certainty, not uncertainty, the legendary, fictional character, named Jesus of Nazareth, whose mythic deeds portrayed in the four gospels, represent the same tradition found in Greek literature for half a millennium, prior to their creation as works of fiction.

Because the authors were trained to write in this prose does not negate the possibility of anyone not being historical. You contradict yourself as you state the same text has historical characters.


Maybe you could explain why enemies of the movement never made a peep about people worshipping a mythical creation, scoffing at how these people were duped.

Yet not a shred exist.

oleg wrote:

Ulan wrote:This still doesn't mean we can be certain that Jesus the man was invented. Maybe, maybe not.

Are there any figures of literature, where the character, as elaborated in the text, satisfies your criteria for "fictional--not human"?

How about Chichikov, for example? Are you uncertain whether or not Gogol had actually documented history, rather than simply creating fiction, in composing Dead Souls?

Do you disagree with Konstantin Aksakov, who was among the first to acknowledge the close rapport between Gogol's fiction and that of Homer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Aksakov

Do you suppose Gogol was actually not creating stories, but rather, writing history?

Do you feel the same way about Homer? "Maybe, maybe not"? In general, Ulan, how does one separate reality from fiction? Is it really so difficult to comprehend the distinction between fiction and fantasy? Are you uncertain about Icarus flying in daylight? If only he had employed moonlight to guide his journey instead, eh?

What are these questions supposed to achieve? I was questioning your principal use of evidence. Either you have some, or you don't. If you have any, fine, you can draw your conclusions. If you don't, you can't. It's really a rather simple concept. No idea why you have such difficulties to wrap your mind around that.

oleg wrote:There's truth.

You are preaching again. Stop with your religious nonsense.

oleg wrote:And then, there's nonsense. You don't have to choose sides, Ulan, but, by remaining persuaded that the truth is uncertain, you clarify why Ehrman can succeed, despite writing utter nonsense like "40-60 years".

More religious preaching from you. I rather prefer scientific approaches, and the term "truth" is mostly avoided in science, because science is perfectly aware of the fact that all our knowledge only reaches as far as we can see, which means you can only deal in probabilities.

Your mention of Homer is actually a pretty good example. Homer is often considered to be a mythical figure. In the 19th century, Troy was also considered to be a mythical city. Until Schliemann excavated it.

Ulan wrote:Homer is often considered to be a mythical figure

One might assume, that, having scolded me, for "preaching", and arguing "without evidence", you would provide a link to those unnamed, mysterious figures of history who regard Homer as a "mythical figure". As far as I am concerned, Homer was a genuine Greek writer, who lived about 3 millennia ago. I acknowledge believing that "fact", based only on what others have written. I may well be wrong. Perhaps he never existed. I can agree that I don't know, and maybe no one knows, whether "Homer" was an actual individual, and not a name given to a group of storytellers.

There are at least two different problems here, with your text, quoted above, Ulan.

You confound "mythical" with "anonymous". No one, let me repeat that, No one, believes that "Homer" represents some sort of divine or supernatural force or phenomenon. Yes, some people do think that "Homer" was not a single individual. No, no one imagines that "Homer" was the name given to some scribe who copied works created by a deity of some sort--some entity possessing supernatural attributes, i.e. "mythical". "Homer", whoever he, she, or they may have been, was not supernatural, hence, not "mythical". Anonymous, yes, possibly, perhaps even probably--I do not know. Mythical--absolutely not. You don't seem to grasp the notion of myth. Homer may have been anonymous, but he/she/they was/were not mythical.

Your second problem, as you have noted, excavations are indeed underway, to reveal Troy in modern Turkey. You confound then, the notion that a real place, like Jerusalem for example, and a real person, like Pontius Pilate, for example, must necessarily indicate historical reality for a fictional character living in that geographical locus, at the same time as the genuine person lived there. No matter how many excavations are performed, in Turkey, Ulan, and no matter how many truths are eventually revealed about the real city of Troy, no one will be able to furnish an explanation for Achilles' invincibility, as a consequence of his immersion into some water, for that is a myth. Myths are not legends, Ulan. Jesus was a mythical character. As such, he is fiction, and therefore he does not have any more existence, than did Achilles. Yes, we may uncover a calcaneum with an arrow point embedded in it, during the excavations. No, that does not prove the existence of Achilles, any more than the discovery of some feathers embedded in melted and congealed wax would prove that Icarus had been able to fly.

Leonardo da Vinci was a legendary figure. He was not a mythical figure. Leonardo had impressive physical and mental skills, all of them, existing within the sphere of human ability, even though, most of us, could not possibly imagine accomplishing any of his great feats. He is only a legend, and not a myth. Leonardo's writing in mirror image remains remarkable, even to the present day. His Mona Lisa is perhaps the most famous painting in the world. His interest in flying, and his attempt to make an airplane are legendary. Ulan, you do not seem able to distinguish between evidence of human creativity, and science, on the one hand, and fiction on the other. Aerodynamics, not supernatural deities, explain why Icarus failed to fly. Heat from the sun was irrelevant. He could never have flown ten meters with wax wings, no matter from which tall building he disembarked. It is a simple matter of fluid mechanics--air is a fluid, as I am sure you know, Ulan.
http://www.amazon.com/Textbook-Fluid-Me ... 8131808157
You asked me to furnish evidence that Jesus was a fictional, mythical character, rather than simply a genuine, living, breathing human, with an impressive skill set, like that of Leonardo. Really? You haven't read the gospels?

Ehrman knows, as a scholar, and instructor of renown, about the scientific method. He does not need to write such utter fabrication, as "40-60 years" to provide a veneer of supposed, genuine historical gloss to a text based on superstition and wishful dreaming. If the person never lived, he cannot have died. Truth.

oleg wrote:

Ulan wrote:Homer is often considered to be a mythical figure

One might assume, that, having scolded me, for "preaching", and arguing "without evidence", you would provide a link to those unnamed, mysterious figures of history who regard Homer as a "mythical figure". As far as I am concerned, Homer was a genuine Greek writer, who lived about 3 millennia ago.

What about doing some research yourself? I expect at least Wikipedia knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_Question

oleg wrote:There are at least two different problems here, with your text, quoted above, Ulan.

You confound "mythical" with "anonymous". No one, let me repeat that, No one, believes that "Homer" represents some sort of divine or supernatural force or phenomenon.

Maybe, you just look up what "mythical" actually means? That would have saved you a lot of words. And no, the term has nothing to do with "divine" or "supernatural force or phenomenon". In the context of a person, it just means that the person had no existence outside of a myth. While supernatural elements are often part of these stories, it's not a necessary element. The wiki article uses the word appropriately:

"If on the other hand Homer is to be considered a mythical character, the legendary founder of a guild of rhapsodes called the Homeridae, then “Homer” means the works attributed to the rhapsodes of the guild, who might have composed primarily in a single century or over a period of centuries."

oleg wrote: Your second problem, as you have noted, excavations are indeed underway, to reveal Troy in modern Turkey. You confound then, the notion that a real place, like Jerusalem for example, and a real person, like Pontius Pilate, for example, must necessarily indicate historical reality for a fictional character living in that geographical locus, at the same time as the genuine person lived there.

You fail at reading comprehension. I was talking about the city itself, not king Priamos or any person. You seem not to have understood anything I wrote. The existence of Troy, the city, was only (mostly) confirmed after the city had been found. The question whether it was a mythical city was therefore decided. By evidence. Which is the point of our current discussion.

oleg wrote: You asked me to furnish evidence that Jesus was a fictional, mythical character, rather than simply a genuine, living, breathing human, with an impressive skill set, like that of Leonardo. Really? You haven't read the gospels?

The question was whether Jesus was a fictional person or had a historical person as basis. That the gospels contain many mythical elements is out of question. However, that doesn't tell us whether Jesus existed or not. Historical tales of the time are full of supernatural stories. Emperors have apparitions that tell them to perform certain actions, or they divide the waters of rivers that they want to cross. Emperors were gods after all, or so they themselves and their biographers wanted to make us believe. That doesn't mean they did not exist.

oleg wrote: Ehrman knows, as a scholar, and instructor of renown, about the scientific method. He does not need to write such utter fabrication, as "40-60 years" to provide a veneer of supposed, genuine historical gloss to a text based on superstition and wishful dreaming. If the person never lived, he cannot have died. Truth.

As I said, you don't argue logically, you argue via belief. Your belief doesn't make what you believe true. Sorry, that's not how this works.

arnoldo wrote:So there was no "social memory" in the 2nd century that these characters didn't exist in the first century? Odd

How could there be memories that somebody did *not* exist?

outhouse wrote:

oleg wrote:

Diogenes the Cynic wrote: I don't know what Ehrman believes, but what he writes is nonsense, because he asserts credibility, where none is due.

You don't have the credibility or education to talk down to his work.

While I agree one can find due criticism in most scholars work, such wide unsubstantiated personal attacks are over the line.

You quoted the wrong person here.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:

arnoldo wrote:So there was no "social memory" in the 2nd century that these characters didn't exist in the first century? Odd

How could there be memories that somebody did *not* exist?

If "arnaldo" ever stopped for 30 seconds to have a think he'd suddenly wake up and realize that there has to be an explanation for all the mythical figures who have happened to enter history as realities .... or perhaps he believes such a thing has never ever and could never ever happen in real life.

Did Jesus really exist?
Memory research has cast doubt on the few things we knew about Jesus, raising an even bigger question.

Brian Bethune

http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did ... y-exist-2/

'' Ehrman is aware of that, and aware too that he has not helped historians’ cause with his memory work. He’s reluctant to talk much about the mythicists, much less debate with them, although he does have one such event coming up in the fall. But he acknowledges, “they’re making headway now, among atheists and agnostics.” And if their case started to be ascendant among Christians, “it would be a blow.”

Diogenes the Cynic wrote: You quoted the wrong person here.

I think so.

My apologies. I would have used different wording with you. [everyone is treated or debated on their own merit or lack of]


I would argue he is not writing nonsense and he does carry credibility, despite both of us in places, disagreeing with his conclusions