Jesus' fame ranking.
November 21, 2005 9:32 PM Subscribe
There are no contemporary extra-biblical references to Jesus. Has there ever been a count of the historical references of individuals during new-testament times to see where he ranks?
What I am looking for is a sort of fame-meter by assuming that the number of times an individual is mentioned in any type of source (excluding the bible) is a measure of their fame/notoriety/importance/existence.
Specifically interested in contemporary references only about people alive during or around the period but not limited to the personages of the bible.
What I am looking for is a sort of fame-meter by assuming that the number of times an individual is mentioned in any type of source (excluding the bible) is a measure of their fame/notoriety/importance/existence.
Specifically interested in contemporary references only about people alive during or around the period but not limited to the personages of the bible.
I just re-read your last sentence. If you have a list of individuals who interest you and you can set parameters for the dates for your search, you can probably pull this off.
posted by acoutu at 10:22 PM on November 21, 2005
posted by acoutu at 10:22 PM on November 21, 2005
Response by poster: I am not looking for a comparison of jesus to The Beatles or Mao. I struggled with how to ask the question without making it fifteen paragraphs long (I am terrible at these kind of questions) but here it is in another way.
For the period, say 50 BCE to 50 CE, from any document proven to be written in that same period, is there a count of individuals mentioned who lived or existed, even if only purpotedly, in that same period?
So say a reference to Abraham does not count, but one to Pilate does, as does a reference to a shopkeeper and the taxes he payed. An indirect reference, say like "these christians believed in one named christ" could be included, perhaps with an asterik as it is an indirect reference (it does not state that he existed, only that some believed he did).
As for a list of comparative names.
I once read that this period was one of the most documented in history and I wondered how many individuals actually have their name mentioned in some document of the day. If Flavius the barber is mentioned once, he has Jesus beat.
So there would be little point in starting with a list of names. All the names I could come up with I know have the man beat.
I was curious to know how many "unknown" people had more written about them at the same time that Jesus was supposedly walking the earth.
So in that way, the count could be looked at numerically in both an absolute and rational manner.
posted by notcostello at 10:56 PM on November 21, 2005
For the period, say 50 BCE to 50 CE, from any document proven to be written in that same period, is there a count of individuals mentioned who lived or existed, even if only purpotedly, in that same period?
So say a reference to Abraham does not count, but one to Pilate does, as does a reference to a shopkeeper and the taxes he payed. An indirect reference, say like "these christians believed in one named christ" could be included, perhaps with an asterik as it is an indirect reference (it does not state that he existed, only that some believed he did).
As for a list of comparative names.
I once read that this period was one of the most documented in history and I wondered how many individuals actually have their name mentioned in some document of the day. If Flavius the barber is mentioned once, he has Jesus beat.
So there would be little point in starting with a list of names. All the names I could come up with I know have the man beat.
I was curious to know how many "unknown" people had more written about them at the same time that Jesus was supposedly walking the earth.
So in that way, the count could be looked at numerically in both an absolute and rational manner.
posted by notcostello at 10:56 PM on November 21, 2005
this book and this one might be good places to start.
posted by Paris Hilton at 10:59 PM on November 21, 2005
posted by Paris Hilton at 10:59 PM on November 21, 2005
Hmm, could have sworn I already posted this, but I guess it was still on my clipboard:
One of things to keep in mind is that many sources on roman history are secondary sources which were written a few decades or centuries after the events took place. Here's an index of contemporary sources from Rome. (they have some other countries as well, notably Israel). You might have better luck with some paper books.
posted by Paris Hilton at 11:02 PM on November 21, 2005
One of things to keep in mind is that many sources on roman history are secondary sources which were written a few decades or centuries after the events took place. Here's an index of contemporary sources from Rome. (they have some other countries as well, notably Israel). You might have better luck with some paper books.
posted by Paris Hilton at 11:02 PM on November 21, 2005
So, of the roughly 30 million people in the Roman Empire (at a later moment), perhaps 1-2 million of them in Palestine, you're asking how many individuals have documentation that we have at hand today? I'd say we're lucky if we know seventeen of them by name.
"Most documented in history" is definitely a crock from any serious historical perspective. There's definitely documentation of various types that survives from the period, but it's not like there's some mud-brick building in Jerusalem that just happens to have some deteriorating tax record scrolls.
I suspect that you're toying with an atheist argument against the existence of Jesus. Not to call you out, but I'm trying to get a handle on the purpose and context. In that light, I believe your post begs the question in a few significant ways.
First, "no contemporary extra-biblical references" is a matter of interpretation, and different scholars have interpreted the available evidence in different ways. Such a flat statement oversimplifies things.
Second, number of mentions in sources as a measure of someone's existence is obviously a faulty methodology. The vast majority of individuals living at any given time prior to, say, the 20th century have virtually no surviving record of their existence. If you research genealogy for yourself, I guarantee you will have a hard time with confirmation of simple events like weddings just three generations back. It's very sobering how little mark most of us make on the world. To argue that lack of documentation, then, is any kind of proof of non-existence (as I suspect is your aim) is clearly fallacious, not least since that would eliminate perhaps 90% of all individuals who have ever lived.
Estimating "fame/importance" is also a false gloss on the idea of Jesus, since he was clearly a minor figure even to the Roman government of the day, let alone anyone living in the wider Empire. To gauge importance, one would need surviving narrative texts from contemporaries in and around Jerusalem during the specific few years of Jesus's most significant activity. The best we have, really, is Josephus, and he wrote a generation or more after Jesus's death.
I think the only honest intellectual position on the historicity of Jesus (and you're aware you're not the first person to ask these questions?) is "unproven". There are Christians for whom that isn't enough, and who will stretch what paltry and secondary references there are into something more definitive than deserved; and there are ultra-skeptics for whom lack of proof of existence is something so much more than it is.
Jorn Barger has a decent starting point, btw. There are numerous scholarly sites on the topic, and numerous less scholarly sites as well -- be cautious. There's an academic mailing list, and there have been numerous books down the ages right up to the present day.
posted by dhartung at 12:07 AM on November 22, 2005
"Most documented in history" is definitely a crock from any serious historical perspective. There's definitely documentation of various types that survives from the period, but it's not like there's some mud-brick building in Jerusalem that just happens to have some deteriorating tax record scrolls.
I suspect that you're toying with an atheist argument against the existence of Jesus. Not to call you out, but I'm trying to get a handle on the purpose and context. In that light, I believe your post begs the question in a few significant ways.
First, "no contemporary extra-biblical references" is a matter of interpretation, and different scholars have interpreted the available evidence in different ways. Such a flat statement oversimplifies things.
Second, number of mentions in sources as a measure of someone's existence is obviously a faulty methodology. The vast majority of individuals living at any given time prior to, say, the 20th century have virtually no surviving record of their existence. If you research genealogy for yourself, I guarantee you will have a hard time with confirmation of simple events like weddings just three generations back. It's very sobering how little mark most of us make on the world. To argue that lack of documentation, then, is any kind of proof of non-existence (as I suspect is your aim) is clearly fallacious, not least since that would eliminate perhaps 90% of all individuals who have ever lived.
Estimating "fame/importance" is also a false gloss on the idea of Jesus, since he was clearly a minor figure even to the Roman government of the day, let alone anyone living in the wider Empire. To gauge importance, one would need surviving narrative texts from contemporaries in and around Jerusalem during the specific few years of Jesus's most significant activity. The best we have, really, is Josephus, and he wrote a generation or more after Jesus's death.
I think the only honest intellectual position on the historicity of Jesus (and you're aware you're not the first person to ask these questions?) is "unproven". There are Christians for whom that isn't enough, and who will stretch what paltry and secondary references there are into something more definitive than deserved; and there are ultra-skeptics for whom lack of proof of existence is something so much more than it is.
Jorn Barger has a decent starting point, btw. There are numerous scholarly sites on the topic, and numerous less scholarly sites as well -- be cautious. There's an academic mailing list, and there have been numerous books down the ages right up to the present day.
posted by dhartung at 12:07 AM on November 22, 2005
One of things to keep in mind is that many sources on roman history are secondary sources which were written a few decades or centuries after the events took place.
This statement applies to the New Testament, also, of course.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:13 AM on November 22, 2005
This statement applies to the New Testament, also, of course.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:13 AM on November 22, 2005
dhartung said everything I was going to say and better.
*renounces false deities, worships dhartung*
posted by languagehat at 6:18 AM on November 22, 2005
*renounces false deities, worships dhartung*
posted by languagehat at 6:18 AM on November 22, 2005
The Romans kept a pretty good census; as did the Jews. The fact that historians are POSITIVE that Socrates lived, and AREN'T positive that Jesus did is very interesting to me.
posted by weirdoactor at 7:01 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by weirdoactor at 7:01 AM on November 22, 2005
Just to provide an example, no hard evidence was found that gave solid proof that Pontius Pilate was real until around 1961. This was a top Roman official, we're talking about at that. Now look to Jesus, a carpenter in a small town and then a wandering preacher. His only real rise to fame where documentation of any sort, would have been his imprisonment and execution by the Romans. If any such documentation existed, it would at best be a simple ledger of some sort. Not very likely that such a document from such a location would easily survive nearly 2,000 years.
Another example of the lack of documentation we have for this period would be the recent innovation of reading faded documents found at the bottom of an Egyptian well. This alone is goind to vastly increase on the written word we have from that period, including lost texts.
Notcostello, to answer your question, I'm not aware of any specific lists that rank "times mentioned," in the classical era. As is, due to the nature of the Roman empire, its citizens, etc, its possible that some high ranking bureaucrat may be mentioned more times than Cleopatra.
posted by Atreides at 8:21 AM on November 22, 2005
Another example of the lack of documentation we have for this period would be the recent innovation of reading faded documents found at the bottom of an Egyptian well. This alone is goind to vastly increase on the written word we have from that period, including lost texts.
Notcostello, to answer your question, I'm not aware of any specific lists that rank "times mentioned," in the classical era. As is, due to the nature of the Roman empire, its citizens, etc, its possible that some high ranking bureaucrat may be mentioned more times than Cleopatra.
posted by Atreides at 8:21 AM on November 22, 2005
Huh? The Romans did take occasional censuses (though I'm not sure on what grounds you're calling them "pretty good"; did you do a follow-up investigation to make sure the census takers did their job correctly?); as for the Jews, if you're accepting the historicity of the Old Testament, censuses were taken by Moses and King David, neither of which would seem to be relevant here. Since we don't have the lists of names from the Roman censuses, I'm not sure how they're relevant here either. And why exactly is it so interesting to you that historians are more convinced of the historicity of Socrates? They're also more convinced of the historicity of Caesar Augustus, but on the other hand they're less convinced of the historicity of Mary Magdalene. So? What does that prove?
posted by languagehat at 8:24 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by languagehat at 8:24 AM on November 22, 2005
Um, that was a response to wierdoactor. On non-preview, Atreides also has an excellent point. There's insufficient documentation for lots and lots of people of that time; Jesus is no exception.
posted by languagehat at 8:25 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by languagehat at 8:25 AM on November 22, 2005
Forget the Roman/Hebrew census then...why is it that we have documentable, empirical proof of much less "famous" people who lived thousands of years before when Jesus is said to have existed; yet the existence of arguably the most important person religious history cannot be proved?
posted by weirdoactor at 9:53 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by weirdoactor at 9:53 AM on November 22, 2005
* the most important in person religious history
posted by weirdoactor at 9:54 AM on November 22, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by weirdoactor at 9:54 AM on November 22, 2005 [1 favorite]
sigh.
the most important person IN religious history
I need a nap.
posted by weirdoactor at 9:54 AM on November 22, 2005
the most important person IN religious history
I need a nap.
posted by weirdoactor at 9:54 AM on November 22, 2005
yet the existence of arguably the most important person religious history cannot be proved?
As was said above, he was far from the most important person in religious history during his own lifetime.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:29 AM on November 22, 2005
As was said above, he was far from the most important person in religious history during his own lifetime.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:29 AM on November 22, 2005
But he wasn't "the most important person in religious history" then, he was just another Galilean Jew. Why exactly would you expect him to have left a trace in the surviving records? He didn't become "important" until long after his death, except to his disciples (just some more no-name Jews). Muhammad did some serious conquering during his lifetime, and shortly after his death his followers conquered much of the known world, and this all happened many centuries closer to our time, yet there's no good contemporary evidence for his existence either. That doesn't mean he didn't exist.
posted by languagehat at 10:31 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by languagehat at 10:31 AM on November 22, 2005
Sigh. Once again, that was a response to weirdoactor. Would the rest of you just butt out so weirdoactor and I can have a quiet conversation? Jeez. Oh, never mind, he's taking a nap. Carry on.
posted by languagehat at 10:33 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by languagehat at 10:33 AM on November 22, 2005
yet the existence of arguably the most important person religious history cannot be proved?
Because Christianity was a loose, underground movement for its first several decades, if not centuries? Because they were systematically hunted and destroyed, making recordkeeping inexpedient for survival? Because, for some significant period of time, Christianity was some weirdo cult splintered off Jeudaism? Not that I'm a biblical scholar, but I think your prima facie assumption about notarity is, to put it politely, naive.
posted by Fezboy! at 10:37 AM on November 22, 2005
Because Christianity was a loose, underground movement for its first several decades, if not centuries? Because they were systematically hunted and destroyed, making recordkeeping inexpedient for survival? Because, for some significant period of time, Christianity was some weirdo cult splintered off Jeudaism? Not that I'm a biblical scholar, but I think your prima facie assumption about notarity is, to put it politely, naive.
posted by Fezboy! at 10:37 AM on November 22, 2005
Well. All of the above makes sense. Thanks!
posted by weirdoactor at 10:42 AM on November 22, 2005
posted by weirdoactor at 10:42 AM on November 22, 2005
Response by poster: Dharthung, a few responses if I may.
I realize that there is no mud-brick building with a bunch of tax scrolls lying around nor has it anything to do with my question.
You suspect wrong nor will be able to call me out. I am an atheist in that I know there is no god as he is portrayed in christianity.
There might be some form of unified higher power that guides the multiverse we live in, but I will not run blindly down the infantile path of anthropomorphism so as to codify the vastness & complexity of the world around in terms that were needed 2000 years ago to both explain to and control the masses.
My question stands as is. It was simply a query to try and gauge how many distinct individuals were written about at the time. If in the 100 year time frame I proposed, there are only 17 people that fit the bill, then so be it.
The fact there are few records from the time is no revelation. It was one of the reasons I asked the question. Much is made of the lack of mention of jesus. Well then, how many references would one expect of anyone, from the most famous of the day to the most invisible. If Pontius has only a few references, then the absolute number for jesus then becomes a relatively high number.
And by the way, the fact that there are no universally agreed upon contemporary extra-biblical references to jesus in no way proves that he existed or not. The flat statement was simply an effort to be concise.
I know that simple mentions is not an accurate measure of fame, now, then or in the future. It was not the point of the question, it was simply a way to quickly explain the concept for those non uber pedantics who can read between the lines.
He was a minor figure, assuming he existed, if he did not perform miracles, if he did not give the sermon on the mount, etc, but if the gospels are true, he might have had some notoriety.
My only interest was to see the information. I personally would consider it for what it is, simply one very small piece of data to be used in my synthesis of ideas on the subject.
posted by notcostello at 10:49 AM on November 22, 2005
I realize that there is no mud-brick building with a bunch of tax scrolls lying around nor has it anything to do with my question.
You suspect wrong nor will be able to call me out. I am an atheist in that I know there is no god as he is portrayed in christianity.
There might be some form of unified higher power that guides the multiverse we live in, but I will not run blindly down the infantile path of anthropomorphism so as to codify the vastness & complexity of the world around in terms that were needed 2000 years ago to both explain to and control the masses.
My question stands as is. It was simply a query to try and gauge how many distinct individuals were written about at the time. If in the 100 year time frame I proposed, there are only 17 people that fit the bill, then so be it.
The fact there are few records from the time is no revelation. It was one of the reasons I asked the question. Much is made of the lack of mention of jesus. Well then, how many references would one expect of anyone, from the most famous of the day to the most invisible. If Pontius has only a few references, then the absolute number for jesus then becomes a relatively high number.
And by the way, the fact that there are no universally agreed upon contemporary extra-biblical references to jesus in no way proves that he existed or not. The flat statement was simply an effort to be concise.
I know that simple mentions is not an accurate measure of fame, now, then or in the future. It was not the point of the question, it was simply a way to quickly explain the concept for those non uber pedantics who can read between the lines.
He was a minor figure, assuming he existed, if he did not perform miracles, if he did not give the sermon on the mount, etc, but if the gospels are true, he might have had some notoriety.
My only interest was to see the information. I personally would consider it for what it is, simply one very small piece of data to be used in my synthesis of ideas on the subject.
posted by notcostello at 10:49 AM on November 22, 2005
One question, what type of sources of documentation are you interested in utilizing for your survey? Graffiti was a big medium for "popular" individuals in that time period. Would you include portraits or representations of an individual? Would early Christian catacomb references count? In current academia, looking and working with other sources besides words written on parchment is a growing tool.
I would also fear that the general illiteracy of a population center might hamper efforts to base popularity on written reference. Another problem that might arise is the intentional absence of names from records or writings, done by individuals with an agenda. It really depends on the direction and the form in which you would use such information in your work.
posted by Atreides at 12:16 PM on November 22, 2005
I would also fear that the general illiteracy of a population center might hamper efforts to base popularity on written reference. Another problem that might arise is the intentional absence of names from records or writings, done by individuals with an agenda. It really depends on the direction and the form in which you would use such information in your work.
posted by Atreides at 12:16 PM on November 22, 2005
How do stories about historically important (this being a relative term) individuals survive without literacy? Songs, folk tales, poetry, verbal histories passed from elder to younger, and the like.
Following up on notcostello's last comment, can anyone provide non-mythological/non-biblical examples of such individuals? In particular, from time periods before widespread record-keeping.
Where does the myth end and the real person begin in these cases?
If Jesus existed, but did not perform miracles, and merely claimed to be the son of God in order to gather a following; does that explain why there is no documentation?
Would a fake avatar be written about or remembered? Example: if for some reason (global war, extinction-level event) there is no longer any record of the events at the Branch Davidian compound in two thousand years, will stories of Vernon Howell/David Koresh be told? Will he have a religion based on his claim of godhood?
posted by weirdoactor at 12:45 PM on November 22, 2005
Following up on notcostello's last comment, can anyone provide non-mythological/non-biblical examples of such individuals? In particular, from time periods before widespread record-keeping.
Where does the myth end and the real person begin in these cases?
If Jesus existed, but did not perform miracles, and merely claimed to be the son of God in order to gather a following; does that explain why there is no documentation?
Would a fake avatar be written about or remembered? Example: if for some reason (global war, extinction-level event) there is no longer any record of the events at the Branch Davidian compound in two thousand years, will stories of Vernon Howell/David Koresh be told? Will he have a religion based on his claim of godhood?
posted by weirdoactor at 12:45 PM on November 22, 2005
All this second guessing of the intentions of the question asker are inappropriate.
The question is quite simple really: Presumably we have written material from that period, presumably some names are mentioned in that material, what are those names? Do any of them occur with multiplicity?
Now the suggestion that other forms of record keeping should be considered is interesting, but without offering concrete examples it really comes down to more noise.
Maybe somebody could start by adding just one name to the list of people... Is Nero mentioned in writing anywhere? Atreides suggests Pilate was, is that true?
Full disclosure, here is my opinion on historicity, and it is a good reference for this conversation to boot.
posted by Chuckles at 1:02 PM on November 22, 2005
The question is quite simple really: Presumably we have written material from that period, presumably some names are mentioned in that material, what are those names? Do any of them occur with multiplicity?
Now the suggestion that other forms of record keeping should be considered is interesting, but without offering concrete examples it really comes down to more noise.
Maybe somebody could start by adding just one name to the list of people... Is Nero mentioned in writing anywhere? Atreides suggests Pilate was, is that true?
Full disclosure, here is my opinion on historicity, and it is a good reference for this conversation to boot.
posted by Chuckles at 1:02 PM on November 22, 2005
It might also be noted that the vast majority of the text of the New Testament wasn't written in a sitting -- it is a compilation of numerous letters between active Christians at the time, many of which who saw Jesus personally and were writing to friends in other cities in the area -- and at the time it wasn't heralded as scripture.
Only recently, on a "modern" timescale (compared to the age of its words) were these letters sorted and set in their current order in the NT and made "biblical" in such a compilation. For instance, Paul's letter to Timothy (in the bible book known as "Timothy" there is encouragement that scripture is sound for reproof and instruction -- but there's not any indication Paul could have known what he was writing would eventually be scripture, so was referring to other texts. Could you clarify what you mean by contemporary?
posted by vanoakenfold at 1:26 PM on November 22, 2005
Only recently, on a "modern" timescale (compared to the age of its words) were these letters sorted and set in their current order in the NT and made "biblical" in such a compilation. For instance, Paul's letter to Timothy (in the bible book known as "Timothy" there is encouragement that scripture is sound for reproof and instruction -- but there's not any indication Paul could have known what he was writing would eventually be scripture, so was referring to other texts. Could you clarify what you mean by contemporary?
posted by vanoakenfold at 1:26 PM on November 22, 2005
Response by poster: I would argue that graffitti might be more compelling evidence. If the masses were listening and believing and took the time to write on the walls, then that would seem to me to have a lot of bearing.
So any reference would be fine. It could all be segregated in a way so that one could pick which references one wanted to include.
If you believe Luke, Matthew, Mark & John, then Jesus had to be a major figure of the time.
If you believe the gospel of Thomas, then he was a minor figure.
The reference to 1961 & Pilate was when they found a coin with his name on it and some inscription in Caesarea. I read something recently about an obscure emperor that they only just found a coin with a his name on. An emperor has only now been proven to exist.
So I know that the fact there is no credible mention of Jesus does not prove anything in of it itself. But it does form part of the puzzle.
So I can only emphasize that the question is quite simple, and presupposed no other meaning or inference.
The numbers do exist, even if they have never been tablulated. I just thought it would be interesting to see them and see what it might mean, within the larger context of all the other information out there.
posted by notcostello at 8:29 PM on November 22, 2005
So any reference would be fine. It could all be segregated in a way so that one could pick which references one wanted to include.
If you believe Luke, Matthew, Mark & John, then Jesus had to be a major figure of the time.
If you believe the gospel of Thomas, then he was a minor figure.
The reference to 1961 & Pilate was when they found a coin with his name on it and some inscription in Caesarea. I read something recently about an obscure emperor that they only just found a coin with a his name on. An emperor has only now been proven to exist.
So I know that the fact there is no credible mention of Jesus does not prove anything in of it itself. But it does form part of the puzzle.
So I can only emphasize that the question is quite simple, and presupposed no other meaning or inference.
The numbers do exist, even if they have never been tablulated. I just thought it would be interesting to see them and see what it might mean, within the larger context of all the other information out there.
posted by notcostello at 8:29 PM on November 22, 2005
The fact that historians are POSITIVE that Socrates lived, and AREN'T positive that Jesus did is very interesting to me.
I don't think the difference in certainty on those two figures is that great, actually. Both are archetypal figures of history, and I don't think any historians feel that everything written about either of them is true, but the vast majority of historians believe that both were at very least based on real people. But the Socrates presented by Aristophanes is generally regarded as a parody, and that presented by Plato & Xenophon generally is considered an idealization; at least some of Plato's dialogues are regarded as using Socrates as a fictional character to stand in for Plato & represent his views (especially those concerned with the forms, etc).
So that "socrates" existed does not mean that he existed precisely as he's presented, and it does not mean that historians are "POSITIVE" about it, either. Much as with Jesus, the general consensus is that someone existed who inspired a lot of followers, and those followers kind of exaggerated & idealized their teacher in writing about him. Of course, Christians made him a god, while philosophers just considered Socrates a great man, so the former may seem like a bigger leap. But making men into gods was less batshit insane back then - Caesar and Alexander were gods, e.g...
posted by mdn at 1:01 PM on November 29, 2005
I don't think the difference in certainty on those two figures is that great, actually. Both are archetypal figures of history, and I don't think any historians feel that everything written about either of them is true, but the vast majority of historians believe that both were at very least based on real people. But the Socrates presented by Aristophanes is generally regarded as a parody, and that presented by Plato & Xenophon generally is considered an idealization; at least some of Plato's dialogues are regarded as using Socrates as a fictional character to stand in for Plato & represent his views (especially those concerned with the forms, etc).
So that "socrates" existed does not mean that he existed precisely as he's presented, and it does not mean that historians are "POSITIVE" about it, either. Much as with Jesus, the general consensus is that someone existed who inspired a lot of followers, and those followers kind of exaggerated & idealized their teacher in writing about him. Of course, Christians made him a god, while philosophers just considered Socrates a great man, so the former may seem like a bigger leap. But making men into gods was less batshit insane back then - Caesar and Alexander were gods, e.g...
posted by mdn at 1:01 PM on November 29, 2005
« Older Adult Swim track on "all times/music eastern." | Need help convincing my landlord to accept a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by acoutu at 10:21 PM on November 21, 2005