GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-07 > 1090161992


From: ロイ・グレイディ <>
Subject: Re: Jesus
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:46:32 +0900
References: <62.40b38745.2e26d62c@aol.com> <1c74a9e5.0407160404.52594bb8@posting.google.com> <1c74a9e5.0407180514.5f89923b@posting.google.com>


Dear Marshall:

Eloquently put. I withdraw my own call for "questions of methodology and
the assessment of documentary validity" with regard to the New Testament
question and will not pursue the matter further. I am sorry if my comments
gave the impression of excessive fervor in any particlar direction. I would
suggest, however, that while perhaps not central in a medieval context, the
New Testament books, include a lot of names and some descriptions of people
and thus are not entirely without prosopographical value for Roman Era
studies if indeed they are not seriously corrupted or utter fabrications to
begin with, and sooner or later (perhaps in a more apposite forum) such
matters should be discussed reasonably if they have not been already.

I am still curious if anyone has an opinion on the usefulness or validity
of the Annales Cambriae or the Pillar of Eliseg, not because I believe or
disbelieve that Arthur as such existed (or that my believing either way
would make any difference) but because if they are not valid as early
medieval sources it would be good to know that and to know why just as we
can understand with regard to Nennius beause of Dumville's work.

Finally, I still think "Lucius's" wayward appearance in Fredegar's account
of early sixth century Frankish affairs is interesting.

Best Regards

Grady Loy


"marshall kirk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> As I write this, Google tells me we're up to 42 posts on this road to
> nowhere, and the true believers (and true disbelievers) are coming out
> of the woodwork.----However, I wrote that, IIRdC, taf had taken *me*
> to task for getting into OT religious questions. A little searching
> suggests that my memory was at fault -- taf did register an
> admonition, but to someone else, albeit in a thread in which I
> happened to be participating. (Perhaps he admonished me as well,
> elsewhere, in this regard, but if so I can't seem to locate it.) I
> quote:
> ----------
> I am not sure this whole line of discussion is going to get us
> anywhere
> on-topic (in fact, I'm sure it is not). The historical nature of the
> events described in the book of Genesis is an article of faith, and as
> such falls outside the realm of normal scholarly analysis. Debating
> logical or theological explanations for seeming inconsistencies
> likewise
> depends on personal beliefs, but more importantly is well beyond the
> charter of this group and such discussions usually end badly.
>
> taf
> ---------
> While the personage under discussion flourished (if at all) much more
> recently than the events of _Genesis_, and while a little discipline
> could perhaps direct such a discussion into useful channels
> (essentially, questions of methodology and the assessment of
> documentary validity), it seems to me that Todd's last two lines trump
> any such proposal. In any case, plenty of other genealogical subjects
> offer ample scope for useful discussion -- subjects that are not OT,
> and are free of religious valence (and violence).
>
> (marshall kirk) wrote in message
news:<>...
> > wrote in message
news:<>...
> > > ...Just a quickie to say that, isn't there NO firm evidence that our
Jesus
> > > existed except possibly, and this is under scrutiny, a bit like Robin
Hood, as a
> > > composite of various individuals??!!
> > > Ave, Peter
> >
> > IIRC, it was taf who took me to task, some months ago, for alluding to
> > the pagan mythological roots of Genesis. Whoever it was, he was quite
> > right to do so. This sort of thing usually goes from bad to worse, as
> > the subject is vehemently emotionally charged for many, many people.
> > Debate over the historicity and doings of King Arthur is contentious
> > enough without turning to a topic seething with religious feeling (pro
> > or con). Besides, y'aint gonna settle it, nohow.
> >
> > For the record, and altho' I may already have said so, I'm an
> > agnostic.


This thread: