True, but then again the fact that they are second or third hand sources has to be taken into account in the contextualization of the information those sources provide. I.e. we must always account for the fact that they *may *just be a fat load of crapola.
Ultimately, history is about an amorphous consensus of scholars (…that sounded more Lovecraftian than it really needed to be) - not about hard facts or “the truth”. Especially when it comes to pre-Renaissance stuff, since as you note the sources and archaeological data we have to go with is very limited. As a result, a lot of what we “know” is just guesses and assumptions.
For example, the story of how the Spartans would enforce primitive eugenics and throw “weak” babies off a cliff has long been held for true, all because of one non-Spartan but intensely Lacedemophile source. Yet there recently were archaeo digs at the bottom of those cliffs and while bones dated to that era were found, no babies, only adults, adults that moreover bore marks of violence so it is assumed they were criminals or prisoners of war.
So now historians are split between “they must not have thrown away their babies *en masse *after all” and “maybe they did, just not there, lots of cliffs to go around”. And both theories are just as “correct” IMO.
The more unique sources we can gather on a particular event, the less chances it’s all made up, naturally ; but the amount of sources is not in and of itself an indicator of truthiness - they could also all be cribbing from the same original, bogus source. See Atlantis, for example. The volume of written material accumulated on the subject of Atlantis over the centuries is staggering. Yet we’re preeeetty sure there never weren’t no Atlantis nowhere.
Of course, the same is true of first-hand accounts, and even *more *so of autobiographical sources - as my Modern History teacher would say, “whenever you’re confronted with a historical text, always bear in mind that the writer or writers are lying bastards and partisan hacks. Your job is to try and determine what they’re bullshitting you about exactly” :).
Well we’ve got enough shards of the True Cross floating around to build a moderate-sized ship with, and at least *eight *unique Holy Foreskins that I know of ; what more do you need ?!
What physical artifacts would you expect to exist that are related to a carpenter ~33AD?
It seems that you are asking for evidence that couldn’t exist or, if it did exist, would actually contradict the existence of Jesus as described. That is neither logically valid nor honest.
An honest inquiry would be “What evidence that we would expect to exist is missing”, not “What evidence that couldn’t exist can I claim doesn’t exist”.
None.
I’m not saying that the non-existence of physical evidence proves Jesus didn’t exist, I’m saying the existence of Alexander (or Caesar, that other perennial favourite) doesn’t hinge on textual evidence alone, and it’s somewhat disingenuous to seem to imply that that’s the case, or imply there’s equal amounts of evidence for those figures and Jesus, because there flat-out isn’t - there’s overwhelmingly more physical evidence for those rulers than for Jesus. Entire cities worth of evidence.
Whereas for Jesus, textual is all there is and likely will be, forged brother-tombs and shrouds notwithstanding.
I’m not a complete mythicist (any more) but I still recognize the “we have just as much evidence for Caesar” argument as a stupid one to be dismissed out of hand.
If this isn’t a restatement of that very stance, then what is it?:
[QUOTE=Blake]
Simple question: Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? Then provide eyewitness accounts and/or actual historical records of the day that establishes his fact.
[/QUOTE]
The only proof you’re demanding there is textual.
It’s a strawman. Pure, simple and clear.
Read this entire exchange again, and if you admit that you still don’t get it I will spell it out for you… on the proviso that you agree to apologise when I do so.
Now, as a follower of the debate, I would like more actual examples of where the Jesus myth is supposed to be a simple rip off of other religions.
No doubt that certain ‘pagan’ elements were absorbed and transformed within Christianity, like the Mother-Son theme/worship of Mary and Jesus or the celebration of christmass or the presence of so many Saints.
Other claims, like about Osiris, need some more explainatory work. What I recall is that Osiris was re-assembled by his mum, not a ressurection as such.
Wait - are you saying when you said " That’s because actual historians do not require eyewitness accounts of ancient figures to be certain of their existence." you were including material evidence in that reasoning? Because the rest of the conversation after that seemed to indicate you were talking about historians being satisfied with secondhand textual accounts only.
But if you meant to include artefacts, then sure, I misunderstood your position, and I apologize.
I must admit, i don’t know which other religions include a zombie uprising as part of their resurrection myths
I’ve always found that the comparative religion arguments sound like everyone advocating them read the* Golden Bough* at too early an age. Eventually they all end up too Da Vinci Codesque. Like I said elsewhere, nobody gives people enough credit for just plain making shit up.
That line of thought pre-dates Sir James’ book by at least a century, though.
It first popped up among 18th century “gentleman amateurs,” who - and here I’ll be lazy and just cite from an old post o’ mine -
Of course, some people didn’t listen. Vide the Zeitgeist crowd, Bill Maher, and other assorted kooks, endlessly regurgitating the bad old crapola of Higgins, Massey, Dupuis, de Volney, Taylor, Blavatsky, Britten, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
