What are you talking about? This documentary:
clearly proves that Socrates really existed! And that Napolean liked ice cream!
Granted that Socrates-as-depicted-by-Plato is probably 95% Plato and 5% Socrates, there was a figure depicted by Xenophon and lampooned by Aristophanes independently of Plato’s creation. So, yes, Socrates can reliably be said to be a real peron. The issue, of course, is how much of our imshr og Socrates is 4really him and how much is Platonic invention. (Just as Jesus, though arguably real (independently of faith), is nearly totally known only from the depictions designed by the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (esch of whom prepared a portrait slanted to make a particular point or set of points).
Well, I’d agree but the Hyksos are pictured in Egyptian art as wearing “cloaks of many colors”. Interesting, eh?
Thanks Poly, and I agree.
The above is a corrected version of my post above. I’m not sure what an “imshr og Socrates” is, but I suspect it’s the Greek-philosophic equivalent of the “Son og God” post that gave rise to “Og smash!” :o
The historicity of Socrates is pretty well documented. In fact, he’s life is even better documented than Jesus:
Aristophanes, a contemporary, mentions him in one of his plays “The clouds”.
He is also mentioned by another contemporary, Xenophon.
Finally, Artistotles, who was younger also mentions him. While he didn’t know him personally he knew Plato and many of his contemporaries.
Obligatory link.
If a person was wrapped in a shroud the way the Shroud Of Turin was he would have to be flat like a paper doll, as the top of the head in front, and the back of the head, both of the images touch leaving no room for a head.
There is the mummy of an Egyptian ‘vizier’ called Yuya that some think may be the historical Joseph. Yuya - Wikipedia It is common for Egyptian names to refer to a tutelary god and it’s worth remembering that of course nobody was ever called ‘Joseph’; the name is ‘Yusup’ or ‘Yusuf’. So it is possible that Yuya meant the first syllables of Yusup-Yahweh.
As to Jesus, well I think there was somebody, but like was said earlier of Socrates, what we have is 95% what writers wanted him to be, and 95% of that is misunderstood in later ages compared to what it meant at the time. I see him as an Arthur figure: even if we found a Historical Arthur, he would not be ‘Arthur’ since so much of the legend accreted to him is updated from other sources and so much much of what he came to mean has nothing to do with any man’s life at the time. In fact I think ‘Arthur’ may be an attempt to make the Jesus story palatable to a warrior culture who would just see him as one more loser.
Who are the “some” who think this? And what is their evidence?
This sounds like the obsessive but totally ahistoric drive to use the bible as a base then circularly link artifacts back to the bible to prove its truth.
All we know is that Yuya may be foreign born. Nothing connects him to the Hebrews, let alone to Joseph. He’s not even the right time period for the supposed events of Joseph.
This devalues history, devalues archaeology, devalues religion, and devalues rational thought. Why bring it up?
There is direct evidence and *indirect * evidence. Sometimes when people say there is no evidence what they mean is their is no direct evidence.
For instance if you’re in a windowless room and you hear thunder, then you go outside and hour latter and it’s sunny but you see a puddle of water on the ground that, along with the thunder you heard, is indrect evidence that it actually rained.
But there is no actual proof the rain 'caused that puddle or even that it rained since you were in a windowless room.
I just finshed a book “The Jesus Myth” and while the author makes some decent arguments Jesus never existed, I don’t think they are strong enough to rule out the possiblity all together.
Of course the bible states that Joseph’s bones were carried into Israel with Moses, so that it doesnt quite square.
The documentary The God Who Wasn’t There closely examines the similarities between Jesus and numerous previous mythological entities, deities, and cult figures and goes on to suggest that the alleged Jesus of Nazareth/Christ character was cobbled together deliberately from earlier god legends.
Wasn’t Israel the promised land, and wasn’t Moses not able to enter there?
Not really - firstly there’s contemporary evidence for Socrates in the form of Aristophanes’ plays (the plays ridiculed Socrates, and Plato later implies that they had a role in his being executed by turning popular opinion against Socrates). Secondly it’s almost undisputed that Plato and Xenophon, the two other main sources for Socrates’ life, both knew Socrates personally, which is not undisputed for the writers of the gospels. Also Plato and Xenophon were writing much closer to the time of Socrates’ life than the gospels were for Jesus.
But I agree with your broader point; there is historical evidence for Jesus, most historians agree that a man called Jesus who became a teacher and was crucified by the Romans probably existed, and it’s more far-fetched to argue that he was entirely mythical than that he existed to some extent.
But the only historical evidence for Joseph, on the other hand, is the Book of Genesis, and while most of the elements of the story do sound possible, the story was probably written hundreds of years after the events and the Book of Genesis contains lots of stories that are completely implausible. I think the chances of Joseph not being mythical are very low.
This is not to conduct a GD-type religious debate in GQ, but simply to raise a salient point: To many believers, the similarities between the Jesus story and other, earlier deity-on-earth stories were intentionally put there by God as “typological” foreshadowing of The Real Thing. If people are used to believing in a mythical tutelary deity for grains who dies and is buried and then comes back to life, they will then be readier to believe when Jesus actually does it. I’ve seen this argument raised by serious thinkers, so it’s worth pointing out here: Given an omnipotent, omniscient God interested in convincing humans to believe of their own free will, liberally larding history with foreshadowing is at least as good an explanation for the similarities as borrowings from other mythologies.
(I don’t expect anyone to necessarily subscribe to this view, but to state for the record that there are those who do.)
That’s right - but Exodus does state that Joseph’s bones went from Egypt along with the Israelites.
Polycarp, something of the sort is mentioned in Mere Christianity, as you doubtless know - and Lewis and a friend observe that it is possible to conclude, not “So much the worse for the Christians”, but “So much the better for the pagans” (at least God threw them a hint).
The problem of the Christ Myth hypothesis is that it takes some later details about the life of Jesus (such as the Christmas Birth) and points to them as examples of common myths such as Adonis, Osiris, and Mithra.
However, the Christmas Birth date was added later- possibly to make the story of Jesus fit earlier myths. This argues against Dec 25th as the birthday, not the existence of a historical Jesus. And it appears that much of Roman Mithraism appeared after Christianity, thereby who copied from who?
Note that the Romans, who did ridicule and persecute early Christians- never raised doubts about the existence of a historical Jesus.
No serious scholar takes this hypothesis seriously. No doubt that myths and traditions were added later, often taken from other cultures- the Christmas tree is a perfect example. Myths and traditions were added later about George Washington(Cherry Tree for example) but that does not mean George was no a real man.
So you’re telling me that Balaam was just talking out of his ass?