Historicist to Mythicist: You might just as well doubt the existence of George Washington and Napoleon!
Mythicist to Historicist: You might just as well believe in the reality of Romulus and Odysseus!
Speaking only for myself: If our first records of George Washington and Napoleon came two decades after their deaths from men who only claimed to know of them by divine revelation, I would probably not be as confident that they existed. On the other hand, if I had accounts of the lives of Romulus and Odysseus written within fifty years of their deaths by men who purported to know stories told by eyewitnesses, I would feel like I had to take the possibility of their existence more seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
'On the other hand, if I had accounts of the lives of Romulus and Odysseus written within fifty years of their deaths by men who purported to know stories told by eyewitnesses,....'
ReplyDeleteSO where do Mark, Luke, Matthew and John name themselves or their 'eyewitnesses'?
I can show you pictures of mythical people, allegedly alive today.
I guess you take the existence of this Maitreya seriously, while the rest of the world thinks Benjamin Creme is a nut.
Mythicists know for a fact that religious people are only too happy to tell lies about people who never existed.
Steven,
ReplyDeleteI am well aware that people make up stories about people that never existed.
I am merely suggesting that a story about someone told a few decades after they lived is entitled to more serious consideration than one told about someone several centuries after they lived.
Good observations. Both parties have more of a job to do than drop those zingers at each other.
ReplyDeleteBen
It is a good observation.
ReplyDeleteWe know that the stories about Jesus meeting Satan in the desert deserve to be taken more seriously than mythicists take them.
Of course, Vinny will probably claim that some considerations overrule his general principle that we should take seriously stories written within a few decades of somebody existing.
ReplyDeleteOr else we would have to take seriously stories of Jesus meeting Satan.
So his claim is now reduced to saying that mythicists need not always take seriously stories written within a few decades.
I feel almost crushed by the claim that we need not always take seriously stories written within a few decades. How will mythicists recover from such a blow?
Really Steven? Really?
ReplyDeleteIs that "Satan appeared to Jesus, therefore it's all myth" red herring going to overturn the entire debate? Like there couldn't possibly be a historical core despite that?
I'll go call Richard Carrier right now and tell him to not bother publishing that huge manuscript that you're helping him edit on the historicity of Jesus. You've won the whole debate in like two sentences, right?
Chill out. It'll be okay. You don't have to prove you're absolutely right with every single comment you make. :p
Ben
Chill out. It'll be okay. You don't have to prove you're absolutely right with every single comment you make.
ReplyDeleteI think he really does.
I merely pointed out that claims that stories should be taken seriously if they were written within 50 years of the deaths leads to claims that stories about Satan should be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteAnd that therefore Vinnie should have nuanced his original statement, which was far too sweeping, putting stories about Satan in the same category as stories not about Satan - namely , the one category of stories written within decades.
WAR ON ERROR
ReplyDeleteIs that "Satan appeared to Jesus, therefore it's all myth" red herring going to overturn the entire debate?
CARR
Why is it a red herring, when people are now saying that they take seriously ALL stories written within 50 years of somebody dying?
Steven,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there is any degree of nuance that I could put in any statement that would deter you from giving it the most radical interpretation possible and whacking away at it like a pinata.
I never said that any or all stories written within fifty years of someone dying should be taken seriously. I said that a story written within fifty years of someone dying should be taken more seriously than one written several centuries later and, therefore, that Romulus and Odysseus are poor analogies.
Steven,
ReplyDeleteYou follow a red herring with a straw man? (see Vinny's comment above) Damn Carr. Seriously. You know there are more levels of magnitude other than 11 on the argument-o-meter right? Did that memo not go out to the UK? Aren't we like the 50,253rd persons you've confronted on the internet to point this out to you? (psst..maybe that means something.)
I'm just teasing, dude. I find your magnitude of internet debate humorous and persuasive often enough. It would just be nice to know that you could cut out the B material when called on it. Is that too much to ask?
Ben