I have a theory that tall tales usually have their seed in actual events or experiences. That's why I tend to take the Bible seriously to the extent that I believe rather than being just a collection of BS, it is a religious history. I believe Jesus of Nazareth actually existed and that the nation of Israel had what at least they considered was a miraculous beginning. Why should we find that amazing when many do the same with America's founding? That isn't to say I believe things happened exactly as described. But I believe they started innocently enough with actual events. The brain being the interesting organ it is, it is often overlooked that vision happens there and not in the eyes as "common sense" might suggest. Our brains filter the images received, interprets them, fills in blanks, and then creates narratives for these images. Memories are sometimes notoriously flawed for that reason. What we originally saw is distorted by the artistry of our minds.
It seems to be the case that the more emotionally charged an event is for us, the more our brains work at rendering what we have seen into something meaningful. For example, I have on more than several occasions "remembered" a certain scene from a movie viewed long ago, referring back to it often in my thoughts down through many years, only to see the movie much later and have occasion to see just how much my mind had distorted what I thought I had seen.
Our brains accomplish this for us in the here and now as well, using our conception of reality to "see" the things we are looking at. That is why people who believe in ghosts see them and those of us who don't don't. That is why stains and random elemental formations on inanimate objects can be viewed as Jesus or Jesus' mother, Mary, by those who are greatly influenced by those characters and those who aren't may scarcely notice them.
I'm saying that our brains not only see things, but interprets them for us as well. And often we aren't aware of this. Most often, I believe.
An interesting case is this story I read about and even saw on the news this weekend.
A father and his seven-year-old son stumbled upon a four foot jellyfish. The father says about his son:
He thought it was an alien. It really did look that way. It was just so weird.
No doubt. I saw the video and was creeped out a bit myself.
To a child's mind, filled with the graphic imagery of video games, comic books, and computer generated special affects in the popular movies of today, and having not lived long enough to get a grasp on how the universe really works, a space alien might have been a reasonable interpretation.
The father, however, was a little more skeptical and went home to do an internet search. He became convinced that what he and his son actually stumbled upon was a lion's mane jellyfish.
Now we can imagine had the boy made that discovery alone and spent the rest of his life telling about the space alien he once saw.
Hey, that reminds me. Does anyone remember the Mr. McBeevee episode of The Andy Griffith show?
Opie, out by himself, encounters a lineman and befriends him. However, his description of his friend causes Barney and Andy to have their doubts about McBeevee's existence and Opie's truthfulness, or rather his ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. And who wouldn't be incredulous given Opie's description of his friend: He walks the treetops, has 12 extra hands, and blows smoke out his ears.
But it all turns out to have a reasonable, down-to-earth explanation. A lineman climbs trees, the extra hands are his tools dangling from his tool belt, and the smoke from the ears is only a smoker's trick to entertain children. Opie's friend isn't imaginary after all. Only poorly understood and described.
Just as the jellyfish might have been. So too the miracles of the Bible. No doubt the legends of elves, werewolves, vampires, bigfoots, dragons, and so forth have roots in reality but became distorted. And miracles do still happen to those who believe in them.
19 comments:
I think evidence shows that the "Israelis" were one of many local tribes that came to rule and set up a fake origin myth -- Abraham coming from a distant land (Ur) to a promised land to wipe out the inhabitants.
So I think taking these myths (read: propaganda) at face value is buying into their manipulative nature. Whether it is the American origin myths which propagated and still propagates expansionism or Jewish myths that claim God gave them land.
So actually, I think we should be OK imagining that the myths have NO "roots in reality" and that their roots are manipulation.
Of course that is not a hard-fast rule, but it is a good guideline.
Imagination drives religion. A good example to which you refer are the imagined "visions" of the Virgin Mary or Jesus in pizzas or some other such foolishness. All of these images are based upon paintings that have been displayed for centuries. Have you ever seen paintings or imagined images images of Jesus and Mary that weren't Caucasian and exact replicas of the faces in the paintings.
Love GMM point, so true. But if just another face were claimed to be Jesus, who would care? Our brains run the show called life. I don't believe that dead people come back, yet I have seen them. Aunt Vi made me believe she would visit me after her death, yet she hasn't. Now I am left wondering what my brain has been doing all these years. Miracles? Just a word used in different ways by different people. And yes, I recall that AG episode well. From the start I believed Opie and my brain was trying to figure out what he might have seen. If my kid ever came home saying he saw an alien, his trips to the old fashioned library would be greatly increased and I'd sit his rear in the sci, not sci fi section. LOL, NOW, if he said he saw a dead person...
I think there had to be this Jesus, just because the details are so many and so many people put so much of their lives into keeping his story alive...all his adventures pure truth? THAT I doubt. But I do not doubt that SOMETHING huge happened back then, that moved so many people. I can think of no other rational answer for his story to be told through the years with such passion and dedication. But he lived in a certain area of the world. Adding God to the mix...that gets a bit shady.
Interesting post, Doug. I saw a picture of the jellyfish. It was kind of creepy, especially the close ups of the tenticles.
@ Diane,
I think there are lots of totally fictitious stories of gods and god-men which survived for centuries without any basis. I don't think we can assume that just because stories exist they have to be based on something. Men died for Zeus, remember. Stories of Hercules abound.
The gospels is all we have fro a story about Jesus --- and they borrow from each other -- and they are not written by the people who is claimed to have written them. (well, except Luke)
I am not saying Jesus was totally fictitious, but the I see no reason he couldn't have been.
@ Sabio - Thanks for your comment.
As a former subscriber to Biblical Archaeology (I've not kept myself so abreast of the latest news) I appreciate ancient history. I think there is more there than you might suspect unless you took the time to do some real digging.
Of course I think a lot of Israel's history was "created" by Ezra and his priests, and the Old Testament cites some ancient non-canonical sources. But again, I see no good reason to the doubt the historicity of the main outline of Israel's history. Of course, they see God's hand throughout that history as much as today's Christians see it in the founding of the United States.
And as for Jesus, while fully acknowledging that mythology was used to round out his history, again I see no good reason to doubt his existence. The Romans had quite a bit of dealings with the Christians and the Jewish Jesus Sect, and several of their historians mention it.
The idea that he never existed is a Johnny-come-lately idea, historically speaking. Seems to me the Romans would have expounded it had it seemed credible to them.
But that is just my opinion.
@ Sabio - Additional thought: Even the Santa Claus myth has some historical basis.
@ Georgia Mountain Man - I absolutely agree, obviously, with what you said: "imagination drives religion."
@ Diane - Yes, miracles are in the eye of the beholder. Much of what I read about being called miraculous seem to me to be just lucky coincidences.
I loved that particular episode of TAGS. In fact, I love the overwhelming majority of the episodes.
@ Don - It was totally freaky, and had I found it when I was seven I'm sure I would have thought of one those creatures from The Outer Limits.
As far as Jesus being a myth being a 'johnny come lately' idea, methinks Typho expressed such a doubt to Justin Martyr.
Methinks also once the Christians had the power, it might not have been too healthy to argue the point.
I wonder also about what real events undergird Mormonism and Rastafarianism.
That's all. This topic becomes adversarial (and I don't want to be) and is really trivial.
@ Exrelayman - Thanks as always for you input.
You know, I find it funny that this Bible thing was nowhere near the main point of my post. It was a small observation that so many things start from a reasonable germ of truth and get expanded over time beyond recognition, and was hardly the only example I gave.
Oh, well. It is still interesting to me. And I don't see why it should be adversarial here at my blog. I state my opinion, my readers state theirs, then we look at what we have. If we don't agree, so what?
My opinion is (and, mind you, I don't claim to be an expert or anything, but just a guy who was once a Christian and still has a fascination with religion in general and to that end has studied the matter as thoroughly as I could with the time I have had to invest, the resources I was able to obtain, and the gray matter I was endowed with) the Bible contains the religious (as opposed to objective secular) history of Israel and in the New Testament, something about the founding of the Jesus movement within Judaism (which I think got unhinged a bit by Saul/Paul; some of that friction seems to be recorded in those earliest documents).
I have no occasion to debate those who think differently and believe all of the Bible is just so much hooey. I respect yours and Sabio's opinion and we can agree to disagree and I hope that won't discourage either of you from reading and posting comments here.
However, in my opinion it is just too much to believe that the Jesus movement was purely the figment of someone's imagination. And had the evidence of Jesus' existence been so flimsy as to make him and his movement worthy of dismissal, I think the ancient Roman historians would have made the case and were certainly in a good position to.
As for Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Typho, I read it completely many years ago. When I say "many years," I mean on the order of thirty years ago. Forgive me if my memory is not sharp here, but I don't recall Typho attempting to make the case that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Would you point out that passage to me if you can recall where it is found?
When I called the Jesus Myth Movement a Johnny-come-lately, I'm referring to the fact that is doesn't seem to have been seriously expounded until three hundred or so years ago. That just strikes me as strange.
Anyway, in the big picture I would agree the matter is rather trivial. But inasmuch as so many of my friends, family, and acquaintances are Christians, I do try to be knowledgeable about the subject.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.
@ Doug
Like you, I don't consider the matter important at all whether Jesus existed or not. Either way, the layers of fictionalization are huge. And if there is a bit of truth to him, he certainly was no god. I am sure we agree on that.
I was merely pointing out that the reasons Diane J Standiford gave don't seem to count as evidence toward his existence at all. I am not saying I think he didn't exist, I am just saying that it is a hard sell.
Concerning Israel's history, there are two big themes:
(1) They are the chosen people -- who came from far away to inherit the land.
(2) They were saved by God from exile in Egypt
Do you think either of those are true?
I realize there is sprinkling of facts, but the fiction is overwhelming.
@ Sabio Lantz - As I've stated many times on my blog I don't believe in the traditional concept of a personal God. That being the case, I have no patience with the idea of "chosen" peoples, and have stated that also many times. Consequently, I don't believe God ever saved anyone from anything.
I find equally as foolish the idea that the United States is a shining city on a hill, placed there by God. Also foolish in my estimation is the idea that God helped us defeat the British, guided our Founding Fathers in the writing of our Constitution, cared the least bit about which side in the Civil War was obeying his will, or any similar notions.
But you nailed it exactly when you wrote "the layers of fictionalization are huge." Indeed. And that was my point in this post.
Had the young boy in this story been alone and with no photographic means, I can just imagine him going about telling everyone about the space alien he had found, until either he learned enough to know better or maybe for the rest of his life. His story would have had a kernel of truth, but the layers of fictionalization would have been huge.
And so it is with religion and the paranormal and tons of experiences we have. And often the things we do see and experience are distorted through the years by our brains.
Hey Doug
Sure, I get that you are not a theist of any kind. Of course I understand that. I get that you don't buy into those stories.
I also understand your example of piling on fiction === and that was the point of your post.
But in the body of your post you made a claim here:
I believe Jesus of Nazareth actually existed
I was curious why you would believe or not believe that. It sounded like you had studied the controversy. Personally -- I don't take a position on that one.
Also you said, "I believe they started innocently enough with actual events."
But I was pointing out that the Exodus and the story of Abraham --- two major stories in their framework were totally mythical. Heck, even the King David story with all his glory is doubted.
So yes, we agree on fictionalization. And your jelly fish story was fantastic. But I was doubting the particulars of what you did accept and believed in.
@ Sabio - Yes, I said I believe Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. Not the Jesus of the Christian faith, but the first-century Jewish teacher/preacher. And in that I stand with the overwhelming majority of historians and scholars. Not that that proves anything one way or the other, but I'm not holding some crankish notion here.
And what I wrote in that opening paragraph was:
"That isn't to say I believe things happened exactly as described. But I believe they started innocently enough with actual events."
Now obviously that is a very broad statement, and because I wasn't writing about my view of the Bible per se, it was made in passing, without any attempt to distinguish how far I actually carry that proposition.
I believe the opening chapters of Genesis are myth and folklore, and have written about it many times here.
Likewise, I feel it likely that Jonah and Job were probably no more than literary creations to make a point. But I wouldn't insist this is so. It just makes more sense to me.
As for the characters you specifically mention - Abraham, Moses, King David - I have no compelling reason to doubt that they either existed or were based on actual historical persons. At the same time I have no reason to defend such a proposition. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. It is a matter of curiosity only.
But this much I will say: the Jewish people do exist and have existed for millennia. There must be some historical basis for that fact, even if it is doubtlessly overlaid with myth and folklore.
And I will say one final thing about this. My problems with the Bible are not so much historical as philosophical. I'm a confirmed naturalist and as such can't buy into the miraculous or supernatural.
In that I acknowledge I may be mistaken, but I have not sufficient reason at this time to understand otherwise.
@ Doug B
We essentially agree. I love the way you write things too.
You said,
My problems with the Bible are not so much historical as philosophical.
And I guess I am only adding a ting more question about the "historical" skepticism. But we essentially (for what matters) agree.
Thanx
There is no topic heading where the existence of Jesus is argued. Rather, at some obscure point Typho begins his sentence with something like 'if this Jesus/Christ/man existed/had being' or some such. The topic is to me not worth trying to find that place to show it to you, since that would take a lot of searching.
I think if you reread my first comment, you will see some reason for the topic not surfacing until recently.
In case I was not clear, I do not mean to be dogmatic either. To me there may or may not have been some non miraculous Rabbi that served as the focal point for legendary accretion. I just think that good cases can be made on both side of it. But the evidence is too scant from that period except from devotees. Of course this is all only my opinion. Interesting to talk about anyway.
Post a Comment