ineffabelle

Your statement implies that he actually said it, which I find highly unlikely, but it's certainly an amusing saying.

From:

I assume you also don't believe Socrates said any of the things he's purported to have said as recorded by Plato. And if you do, then why do you trust one historical account that's even more ancient and incomplete than another which is more recent and has better records.

From:

I honestly don't have an opinion on that. However, off the top of my head it occurs to me that Plato was at least a contemporary and an eyewitness to Socrates speaking, which to my mind (and without much certainty, as I am not well-researched on the lives of Socrates or Plato) gives it far more reliability than any of the gospel accounts of what Yeshua might have said.

From:

The earliest texts we have of Plato are from the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. So there's a lot of time between the two.

Plato claims to be a contemporary of Socrates, but the earliest platonic manuscript we have comes about 7 centuries later.

The writers of the gospels claim to be contemporaries of Jesus. The earliest texts we have come two centuries later.

It seems unfair to accept Plato's claim but to deny the claims of the persons who wrote down the account of Yeshua's life.

From:

wolodymyr.livejournal.com

I don't think this stuff ever gets brought up enough,

zachariahskylab, thank you.

From:

ineffabelle

As I may have said obliquely, I am starting to think that everything is a matter of mythology and communication theory. Everything else is just a variant, or subcategory of those fields.

From:

...I quite agree, which is why I stated that I was not well-researched and therefore not certain. Do a favour and don't assume my positions on things I'm not stating positions about in order to make a point?

From:

sammhain.livejournal.com

Is this a serious question?

The important difference is that texts dealing with Socrates by any of his students were always seen as either philosophical or dramatic texts and not history lessons, in fact anyone claiming otherwise would be to the best of my knowledge just not actually familiar with the subject(or engaging in intellectual dishonest). Additionally while texts dealing with Socrates present a consistent if not literally accurate depiction of Socrates, the character of Jesus derives whatever limited consistency he has thanks to the judicious editing of the council of Nicea, and of course papal decrees that made folklore "real" even when there is not real consistency in scripture of said events(like Mary flying into heaven)

Additionally many people do actually believe things from the new and old testements are literal and historically accurate whether it's the especially laughable idea that every species of animal lived near Noah and that he built a boat ginormous enough to fit all of them, or that Jesus...a human being, rose from the dead and let people stick their hands in a reportedly lethal spear wound. To the best of my knowledge there are no claims about Socrates that fly in the face of everything we know about human beings.

Moreover there's not a whole lot of evidence that suggests Socrates is a carbon copy of any number of pre socratic figures from surrounding cultures unlike say Jesus, Osiris, Mithra, whatever.

So in short comparing the two like this is a sad sad red herring.

Edited Date: 2009-09-14 01:41 am (UTC)

From:

"the character of Jesus derives whatever limited consistency he has thanks to the judicious editing of the council of Nicea, and of course papal decrees that made folklore 'real' even when there is not real consistency in scripture of said events"

What are you talking about here? The early church considered the (canonical) gospels to be deliberately inconsistent and mythologized in order to present the four abstract moments which they took to be united in the actual reality of Christ, viz. God, priest, man, and prophet. See Irenaeus' Against Heresies III:11:7-9 for an early statement of this position. The idea that you can mix the gospels together and read them like a history book is very new, you won't find it in any of the Nicene documents.

From:

Nevertheless the seperation of works into 'canon' and 'not canon' most definitely made the character of Jesus and the stories of his life more consistent, which seems to be what

sammhain was saying.

(also, IIRC Irenaeus contradicts himself on this point in other places... it's been awhile, though, could be wrong, have to read him again soon.)

From:

"Nevertheless the seperation of works into 'canon' and 'not canon' most definitely made the character of Jesus and the stories of his life more consistent..."

There are certainly other accounts of Jesus' thought which contradict the theological meaning implied in the selection of canon.

"...which seems to be what sammhain was saying."

But the selection of canon did not occur at Nicaea, nor was it done by papal decree, nor was it an act of editting, nor was it accomplished to the end of consistency, so none of the points mentioned accurately suggest this issue.

And there are rival accounts of Socratic thought as well, so if this is what is being said, then it defends rather than refutes the comparison of our access to the two figures.

From:

There are certainly other accounts of Jesus' thought which contradict the theological meaning implied in the selection of canon.

Very much so.

But the selection of canon did not occur at Nicaea

True (and I know that's a scholarly sore point, as a lot of people oversimplify the process and lump it all on the first Nicaean council), but I think a fair argument can be made that it started the process by creating the first truly 'official' Creed of beliefs. I don't really think that it would have gotten to the point of the Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage had Constantine not convened the Nicaean council or something like it.

nor was it an act of editting

Selection of canon can certainly be seen as an act of editing, cutting from the whole body of work only what one chooses to keep. I know that's one of the ways I've often looked at it.

Now, if you're saying that The Council of Nicaea did not do an act of editing (it's unclear to me from your sentence), then I do agree with you there.

nor was it done by papal decree

True, but I think he or she was referring to a different event or events when referring to papal decree. Leastways that's how it looks to me.

nor was it accomplished to the end of consistency

Agreed.

And there are rival accounts of Socratic thought as well

Really? Interesting. :) I know little of socratic or platonic thought myself, so I can't really comment. I am enjoying the discussion, though, annoyed though I was by the straw man that brought us into this comparison in the first place. It's reminding me of things I really ought to go back and re-read sometime soon.

From:

"I think a fair argument can be made that [the Nicene Council] started the process [of standardizing Christian belief]...."

I don't think this process was ever in question. From the historical point of view, we can only speak of Christianity to the extent that it represented a sufficiently unitary body of belief and practice. If it didn't, there'd simply be nothing to talk about. And when groups of people get and stay together, particularly over multiple generations, and particularly when being faced with the tension of identifying relative to other groups, the formation of sufficiently unitary bodies of belief and practice is spontaneous. The idea that we needed the intervention of someone like Constantine to get this particular ball rolling seems silly, given these points. In any case, if we wanted to point the finger at a first important council, it would certainly be the Council of Jerusalem, a good three centuries before Nicaea.

"Selection of canon can certainly be seen as an act of editing, cutting from the whole body of work only what one chooses to keep."

Canonization is an act of construction or assembly, it is when multiple separate things are brought together. It can be considered an act of exclusion in the secondary sense that whenever we unite a certain set according to a rule, that very rule, if its to be meaningful as such, excludes according to the same condition by which it unites. But this sort of exclusion ought to be clearly distinguished from exclusion in the primary sense which begins with what is whole and excises from it some of its parts. This primary sense of exclusion is not appropriate to canonization, since there was no whole to begin with.

"Really?"

Sure! There's a tradition going all the way back to Aristophanes associating Socrates with the sophists rather than with Platonism.

From:

I think we're getting into matters of simple opinion at this point, and the best that I can do is say that my opinion differs and that's all good with me. :)

From:

I don't think I've expressed any opinion here, but we can certainly take that itself as our point of departure.

From:

O_O

Yes, I think we will have to.

From:

I'd be happy to provide references for whatever claim is in dispute.

From:

I just want to thank Wyndhover for being a good sport about all this... I didn't mean to jump down your throat for one little comment... but disagreements on the internet tend to snowball quickly.

Here's to no hard feelings! We can all disagree about that I'm sure ;)

From:

That they do. :) It's all good, I've done it plenty in my time.

From: