2019-05-25

The Question of Historicity Need Not Be Raised

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

The question whether Orpheus himself existed or not need not be raised. There was, in general, no doubt of it in the ancient world. Indeed, it makes very little difference in the history of human thought whether the great and influential personalities ever actually lived in human bodies. Personalities like Zeus, Odysseus, and Zoroaster, and even Hamlet and Don Quixote, have been more important in the world than millions of men who have lived and died. Their reality is the reality of an idea, and the best that we can know about them is what men have thought about them. The reality of Orpheus is to be sought in what men thought and said about him.

Linforth, Ivan M. 1973 (c 1941). The Arts of Orpheus. New York: Arno Press. xiif

Bio
Latest Posts

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

‘Tis that time of year when . . . - 2024-12-24 05:03:20 GMT+0000
Is Everything a Question of Probability? - 2024-12-15 03:04:03 GMT+0000
The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History” - 2024-12-13 05:51:46 GMT+0000

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

5 thoughts on “The Question of Historicity Need Not Be Raised”

db says:

2019-05-25 14:42:24 GMT+0000 at 14:42

• In comparison to the quality of the thought of the OP, we have this:

Klein, Christopher (26 February 2019) [now bolded]. “The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof Exists?”. HISTORY. Updated 16 April 2019.

[Per Bart D. Ehrman:] “The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place . . . lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”

Ehrman (24 February 2019). “Non-Christian Sources for Jesus: An Interview with History.com”. The Bart Ehrman Blog.

I have recently had a written interview about the historical Jesus with Christopher Klein, correspondent with History.com, the web site of the History Channel. I’m not sure what the title of the article will be; it should be appearing relatively soon, as a lead up to Easter.

Cf. Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperOne. ISBN 9780062089946.

Reply
Martin Lewadny says:

2019-05-25 17:48:07 GMT+0000 at 17:48

There is much more than an ounce of truth in those words by Linforth. Very helpful and succinct. Thanks Neil.

That is why Christianity doesn’t need any historical Christ to live out the ethics and certain beliefs of various Christian sects. The apologists insist on it because they need “proofs” that they themselves don’t understand and often live hypocritically with their own rationalistic worldview.

I think most if not all apologists are the very thing they accuse agnostics and atheists of being–rationalists. They won’t accept only a “supernatural” or “spiritual” (god I hate that word!!) Jesus,,they need a historical Jesus, or at least their version of a historical Jesus.

Yes, who cares if Jesus was historical….I don’t care… I don’t think the apostle Paul did either.

2 Cor. 5:16 –17!!!!

Interesting text indeed. Here is a translation of it from my forthcoming translation of the NT called “SCRIBE”. (I remain open to changing my translations , so since it is not published yet all my translations are tentative)

vs. 16– “So consequently, from this very moment on, we do not estimate anyone in terms of flesh. Even if we once estimated the Anointed in terms of flesh, we now stand contrary to this and no longer recognize him in these terms.”

vs. 17–“Another consequence is this: if anyone is in the Anointed, he is a new creation. The old order of things has finally passed away. Take a gaze! A new order of things has come into being and remains so.”

Reply
1. Steven C Watson says:
  
  2019-06-03 01:19:29 GMT+0000 at 01:19
  
  I appreciate the effort; but I’ll take Tyndale over you. 70/30 yours will be another crime against the English language. Sorry. 🙂
  
  Reply
Tom Adams says:

2019-05-25 18:45:52 GMT+0000 at 18:45

This is all too elegant to be convincing. Jesus is not the same as Orpheus, or other ancient divinities, because it is a presumption of Western culture that Jesus did live in a human body.

Reply
Martin Lewadny says:

2019-05-26 08:04:38 GMT+0000 at 08:04

Hello, Mr. Tom Adams.

What do you mean by “This is all too elegant to be convincing.”?? What are you referring to?

Something I said or what the blog is referring to:: that a Historical Jesus is not necessarily needed to make a powerful historical, sociological, theological impact, etc. and a powerful writing movement for a particular cultic perspective from Judaism which did and make a real impact century after century with perceived horror and hope as the texts reveal…

So I am assuming you agree there is much “Embellishment” through and through… it is after-all historical powerful, fantasical and imaginative literature which in itself conjures up all kinds of revelations, inspirations, interpretations, which have all kinds of fascinating things but which in there own ways simply represent personal revelations and sources for their teaching and ethics.

I think you agree then, but I could be wrong. And the apologists of Christianity continue to deny this.. Shame on them …and they apply all the biblical texts to others and won’t apply them to themselves!!! Jesus said many times to the the so-called inside interpreters…. You like to suit the texts to yourselves….. Again… I am sorry I really don’t like Christian Apologists of any sort…. I can see all their cards even before we begin the apologetic games of theology and apologetics. I used to be an “Apocaholic” . The Apocalypse is upon us… and many years later I had to say “No More of this Bullshit re When Time Shall Be No More!

Apologists are embarrassing themselves with tyrades about historicity….and even turning their eschatologies into histories already to capture the minds of the unstable and undiscerning..

I usually ask the fundigelical if he has a relationship with the historical Jesus or a facsimilie or spirit copy of Jesus…? Every time they simply look at me and wonder what I am asking.. so

So “historicists” ,,believe Jesus is historical because they have met the historical Jesus in their experience or just repeating a belief in the historical Jesus. It might be helpful if Carrier and Latster engage more with their opponents on this issue.

I’ve been at this a long time and sometimes get weary of it all… Again, who cares whether there was a historical Jesus or not? So you apologists out there why haven’t you addressed this issue? For Christianity to survive the way you think it ought to , why do you need a historical Jesus to make it all nice for your faith?

Most Christians I know don’t claim any relationship with a historical Christ,, but some entertain in their minds images that are so distorted it causes me to face palm most of the time.

There are no criticisms of you here Mr. Adam. Simply raising some questions and doing a bit of ranting about all the hoopla regarding the necessity or the orthodoxy regarding some need for a historical Jesus.. It is clear in my view…whatever the historical Jesus was he is not what I read and many others read in the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

Many apologists won’t face what is standing in front of them… a very disparate collection of texts which give off a cacophany of voices regarding Jesus…and not just some historical Jesus but a creation of creative writers who put together a composite (bri)collage of the Jesus figure in all this literature. If the historians of yester-year mention Jesus then why wouldn’t they have been interested in hunting down something he really said and did and then talk about it. ??

the secular record is silent about this and much of it is fabricated even regarding his actual existence.

Yes… You said Jesus did not live in a human body….please keep Jesus and Christ distinct in the literature . This is very important. Terminology is important and textual logic must be kept in check…. Jesus does not necessarily == the Christ.. These are interpretations. This was clear to Jews and others back then and still is today….

So what do you think is going on in the NT portrayal of Jesus?

Kindly

Marty

Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This is superb work, Neil, and reminds me of Albert Schweitzer’s work from a century ago. . . . .

I commend you for being the first to even TRY to translate Bruno Bauer’s brilliant Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, which is now more than 150 years old.

. . . . .Thank you for your historic effort.

-- Paul Trejo, M.A., - November 2022
Editor, An English Edition of Bruno Bauer’s 1843 Christianity Exposed
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010
"Neil, for what it is worth it is obvious to me that if you had earlier in life tracked into a graduate program at one of the world’s leading research universities you would be one of the world’s formidable ones. You are doing essentially the same quality now (apart from the philology and languages) except mostly sticking to commenting on others’ work as informed comment/discussion."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
It is worth saying another word of appreciation here for Neil Godfrey's effort to make Bruno Bauer accessible in English.

-- Peter Kirby, - May 2023
"I want to say here that this site is so resourceful and highly on top of the most modern scholarship in the areas discussed here. . . I know of no other site which offers a wide range of topics related to careful critical analysis of historically and scripturally related issues."

-- Martin Lewadny, - March 2009
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
"Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion. Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"I’ve even been cited by atheists with approval (which I really don’t know how to take, so thanks, I think, but I’m not sure, Vrider (even though I feel like I need to take a shower now))."

-- Jim West, – September 2010
"Neil, in my mature judgement (I am now an old man), this fine 4-part study is a brilliant reworking, an instructive restatement of Hayden White’s Metahistory (and his subsequent writings). Your critique of certain historiographic representations as imbedded in the case study of the “scientistic”, “empirical” Richard Carrier provides a solid starting point for the more honest “fictive” reading of the New Testament that you encourage. Your last paragraph is a very intelligent call to sensitive readers of these texts. I suspect a whole generation of biblical students has been educated without the insights provided by the incomparable White. Bravo!"

-- Timothy Bagley, - November 2024
"I find your blog most interesting and appreciate your ongoing effort to keep to the evidence for the issues discussed!"

-- Thomas L. Thompson, - April 2020
"Neil, You’ve done a clean job in your posting on ‘Jesus the Healer’. It reflects well on you. Best, John"

— John Moles, September 2011 (personal email)
"For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org."

— Tom Dykstra, – JOCABS 2015
"Thanks for this detailed interaction! I’ll try to offer something more substantial than 'Thank you' in response at some point, but I didn’t want to wait . . . to express appreciation for your detailed interaction with what I’ve written!"

— James McGrath, – June 2009
"Note that I do not use the term ‘amateur’ pejoratively. . . . In fact, Godfrey is extremely well read and his librarian skills have brought many important academic works to my attention."

Raphael Lataster - August 2019
"I have found your website really valuable as an interpretive filter for Biblical scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity and historicity of Jesus issue. Your clarity of expression, fair comments and personal insights are much valued. I refer to your site frequently as yet more names and publications pop up requiring an academic critique and helpful recommendations for book purchases. So, please continue to delve deeply and share this intellectual sustenance with your grateful readers."

— Mary Booker, – February 2020 (personal email)
"Thanks much for this book review. I think it expands, and contributes to, the effort in honouring Thomas that we with Lukasz originally had in mind with this volume. Best, Emanuel"

-- Emanuel Pfoh - August 2020
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=145080#p145080
Neil made a good synthesis of the work without being an “expert” of the field.

-- Enrico Tuccinardi, - October 2022
"By the way, my thanks to Neil for an ongoing superb job of exposing Jim’s review for what it is: a farcical and none too effective exercise in mythicism assassination, nothing to do with rational, let alone unbiased, scholarship. I’m also happy to see even Jim giving Neil credit where credit is due."

— Earl Doherty, June 2011
"I’d like to thank you for this very nice representation of what I was trying to show in the book. It’s always gratifying when a reader zeroes in on exactly those aspects I thought were most interesting and most central to my argument. Thank you for this careful and engaged reading of my work – much appreciated!"

— Eva Mroczek, – June 2017
Congratulations, Vridar, . . . I declare, Vridar, your own hard work translating Bruno Bauer will make a major difference in future studies of Bruno Bauer and the evolution of Hegel’s philosophy of religion.

-- Paul Trejo, - April 2023
"Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work."

— Richard Carrier, – March 2014
"I still wonder at all the material you turn out for Vridar. The more I read your stuff (and I still do, of course), the more I realize how much we all owe you. Your voice is unique."

— Earl Doherty, November 2013 (personal email)
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
"I think you have a high quality blog that provides a positive public service by discussing academic topics within a wider audience."

— Russell Gmirkin, – October 2016
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
"Here I give an admittedly subjective short list, in random order, of useful, high level and regularly updated weblogs on the study of the Old Testament . . . ‘Vridar: Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science’ (http://vridar.org/) by Neil Godfrey"

-- Klaas Spronk, - Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXI, 3/4 (2014)
"Thanks for your very elaborate review! I realized that I hadn’t added your blog to our blogroll. This oversight has been corrected. Looking forward to more segments."

— Anthony Le Donne, – September 2009

Neil Godfrey on Review of R. G. Price’s book on the Christ Myth theory — and a review of Richard Carrier’s to come: “If you are persuaded by the kind of evidence cited then you might also be interested in a major city…” Dec 22, 23:57
Henry Cobb on Review of R. G. Price’s book on the Christ Myth theory — and a review of Richard Carrier’s to come: ““Mark’s Geography and the origin of Mark’s Gospel with Professor Richard Bauckham” shows that parts of Mark is based on…” Dec 22, 21:58
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “A troll is someone who ignores what is being said and continues their own agenda without engaging with the logic…” Dec 21, 03:26
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I am still once more responding, so that you do not think that I am impolite or that I am…” Dec 20, 07:22
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I re-read my earlier reply and can see how you took it as “emotional” — but I can assure you…” Dec 18, 02:43
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I simply asked you to tell me what it is that you think I misunderstand or what, specifically, I am…” Dec 17, 20:26
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “Neil, I have no interest to engage in an emotional discussion. I felt indebted to you, since I read many…” Dec 17, 19:21
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “Why do you ask? What are you trying to argue? I agree and acknowledge that Bayes theorem is a valid…” Dec 16, 09:22
Petr Jancar on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “My sentence “I voice several assumptions, testing if we all agree on them:” was meant as a yes/no question; let…” Dec 16, 08:57

Neil Godfrey

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

Share this:

Like this:

5 thoughts on “The Question of Historicity Need Not Be Raised”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Discover more from Vridar