his [of the mythicist Bolingbroke] compatriot Howell had a very ridiculous genealogy fabricated in France; some Irishmen wrote of him and Jansen that they had familiar spirits who always brought them aces when they played cards. They fabricated a hundred mad stories about them. This does not prevent them from really existing; anyone who lost his coins with them was well convinced of this.
(my bold)
Here Voltaire is clearly comparing Jesus with the "familiar spirits" invented by a guy named Howell to win in the games of cards.
Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 8:59 am
Voltaire was not a mythicist.
Voltaire specifically has a passage where he talks about the followers of Lord Bolingbroke and calls them "more ingenious than learned" when he describes their argument that Jesus never existed. Voltaire thinks Jesus existed and does not find mythicists of his own day convincing.
How do you explain the fact that that quote above fits so well with Jesus (even if Voltaire was talking about Numa Pompilius's different chronologies) ?
It would be an offence to his intelligence denying that Voltaire didn't allude also to Jesus, I think.
In addition, his kind comment about Bolingbroke seems to be not quite a distancing.
Here is the full quote:
Only a fanatic or stupid rogue could say that you should never examine the story of Jesus with the lights of reason. With what will you judge a book, whatever it may be? Is it with folly? I put myself here in the place of a citizen of ancient Rome who was reading the stories of Jesus for the first time. We have Hebrew and Greek books for and against Jesus that are equally old-the Toledat Yeshu and the Toledat Jesu writings against him in Hebrew. In these books they treat him as a bastard, an impostor, an insolent, seditious wizard; and in the Greek Gospels they make him almost a participant in divinity itself. All these writings are full of prodigies and at first seem to our feeble eyes to contain contradictions tradictions on almost every page.
An illustrious writer who was born very soon after the death of Jesus and who, if you believe St. Irenaeus (who asserts that Jesus died at the age of fifty; in this case, Flavius Josephus could well have seen him), should have been his contemporary; in short, Flavius Josephus, close friend of the wife of Herod, son of a sacrificing priest, who should have known Jesus, does not have the shortcoming of those who speak about him so abusively and is not of the opinion of those who praise him so profusely. He says nothing at all. It is proven today that the five or six lines about Jesus attributed to Josephus were interpolated by a very awkward fraud. For, if Josephus had in fact believed Jesus was the Messiah, he would have written a hundred times more; and in acknowledging him as the Messiah he would have been one of his followers.
Justus of Tiberias, another Jew who wrote the history of his country a little before Josephus, keeps deadly silent about Jesus. It is Photius who assures us of this.
Philo, another famous Jewish writer of the time, never cited the name of Jesus. No Roman historian speaks of the prodigies that are attributed to him and that should have made the land heedful.
Let us also add an important truth to these historical truths, which is that neither Josephus nor Philo made the least mention in any place about the expectation of a Messiah.
Will you conclude from this that there was no Jesus, just like some have dared to conclude from the Pentateuch itself that there was no Moses?No, seeing that after the death of Jesus they wrote for and against him, it is clear that he existed. It is no less evident that he was then so hidden from people that no citizen, even a little eminent in the world, made mention of his person.
I saw some disciples of Bolingbroke, more ingenious than educated, cated, who denied the existence of Jesus because the story of the three wise men and the star and the massacre of the innocents are, they said, the height of eccentricity; the contradiction of the two genealogies that Matthew and Luke gave is especially a reason that these young men allege to persuade themselves that there was no Jesus. But they drew a very false conclusion.
Our compatriot Howell had a very ridiculous genealogy made in France; some Irishmen wrote that he and Jansen had familiar spirits who always gave them aces when they were playing cards. They made up a hundred crazy stories about them. This does not prevent them from really existing; whoever lost their money to them was well convinced vinced of this.
What foolish things have not been said of the Duke of Buckingham? ingham? He nonetheless lived under James and Charles.
Apollonius of Tyana certainly resurrected no one; Pythagoras did not have a golden thigh. But Apollonius and Pythagoras were real beings. Maybe our divine Jesus was not really taken up onto a mountain tain by the devil. He did not really dry up a fig tree in March because it bore no figs, even though it was not the time for figs. Maybe he did not descend into hell, and so on. But there was a Jesus to be respected only by consulting reason.
There you go. He states it explicitly that "it is clear that he [Jesus] existed." You seem to have taken a passage from Voltaire out of context and misinterpreted it. But Voltaire explicitly states that he thinks Jesus existed and that this is to "be respected only by consulting reason." He does not remotely think it likely that Jesus didn't exist, disavowing the argument from silence, the contradictions, and the comparisons to resurrections and notes that other such mythologized figures also existed.
It is blatantly clear that Voltaire was not a mythicist and he did not think very highly of mythicists in his own day, referring to them as "more ingenious than educated."
Last edited by Chrissy Hansen on Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:12 am
I am thinking about the following words:
his [of the mythicist Bolingbroke] compatriot Howell had a very ridiculous genealogy fabricated in France; some Irishmen wrote of him and Jansen that they had familiar spirits who always brought them aces when they played cards. They fabricated a hundred mad stories about them. This does not prevent them from really existing; anyone who lost his coins with them was well convinced of this.
(my bold)
Here Voltaire is clearly comparing Jesus with the "familiar spirits" invented by a guy named Howell to win in the games of cards.
If this is not a concession to mythicism...
This is not what he is saying. He is saying that Howell had fantastical tales told about him, including a false genealogy and "familiar spirits" tales. He is saying that real people got mythologized. Hence he also compares Jesus to Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana.
This is not what he is saying. He is saying that Howell had fantastical tales told about him, including a false genealogy and "familiar spirits" tales. He is saying that real people got mythologized. Hence he also compares Jesus to Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana.
"familiar spirits" don't exist, so also Jesus doesn't exist. What is wrong with this comparison made by Voltaire?
Are you meaning that the 'real people who got mythologized" would be precisely the ancestors of mr Howell ? really?
Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:28 am You seem to have taken a passage from Voltaire out of context and misinterpreted it.
The quote about Howell's invention of 'familiar spirits' is taken from the correct context (one where Voltaire is commenting about mythicism). Please deal with it.
This is not what he is saying. He is saying that Howell had fantastical tales told about him, including a false genealogy and "familiar spirits" tales. He is saying that real people got mythologized. Hence he also compares Jesus to Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana.
"familiar spirits" don't exist, so also Jesus doesn't exist. What is wrong with this comparison made by Voltaire?
Are you meaning that the 'real people who got mythologized" would be precisely the ancestors of mr Howell ? really?
Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 9:28 am You seem to have taken a passage from Voltaire out of context and misinterpreted it.
The quote about Howell's invention of 'familiar spirits' is taken from the correct context (one where Voltaire is commenting about mythicism). Please deal with it.
Voltaire is not comparing Jesus to familiar spirits G... he is comparing Jesus to Howell. The Howell quote is emphasizing that real people can have myths written about them. Howell did not invent the familiar spirits. You are misreading the passage G. And he explicitly says that Jesus existed. You are just ignoring those quotes I boldfaced.
No, seeing that after the death of Jesus they wrote for and against him, it is clear that he existed.
He says it explicitly. He thinks Jesus existed, he said so. Deal with it G. You are misreading him.
I have talked about 'concession to mythicism'. Someone can be historicist and even so he can concede a point to pure mythicism. Voltaire did so clearly when he talked about Howell's invention of 'familiar spirits' who would have helped him in the cards.
The people who have been persuaded about the existence of said 'familiar spirits' by Howell were the same people who have lost their 'coins' with him. The same people are clearly compared to historicists , so I don't think just that Voltaire wanted to be enumerated among the latter. He was too much cautious. I would call him 'a Jesus agnostic', for that comparison.
Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 11:00 am
Irishmen said that there were "familiar spirits", not Howell. Good grief.
the people who believed their existence are compared to historicists. Aren't they?
In this comparison, to whom is Jesus compared? With Howell and Jansen? Or with the "familiar spirits"?
Our compatriot Howell had a very ridiculous genealogy made in France; some Irishmen wrote that he and Jansen had familiar spirits who always gave them aces when they were playing cards. They made up a hundred crazy stories about them. This does not prevent them from really existing; whoever lost their money to them was well convinced vinced of this
I think that Voltaire is comparing Jesus with the "familiar spirits", here, not with Howell and Jansen.
Jesus is compared to Howell and to Jansen. I.e., historical people who had myths sprout up about them. He is saying that Jesus was mythologized. He also compares Jesus to Apollonius of Tyana and Pythagoras. He states explicitly that Jesus existed, multiple times.
It makes no sense to compare him with "familiar spirits" when in the next breath he compares Jesus to Apollonius of Tyana and says they both had a "resurrection" but that Apollonius was a real person too. He is saying, the amount myth accrued is not indicative of Jesus being nonexistent. Hence why he also disavows Bolingbroke's followers, and he says outright that Jesus existed.
He calls the conclusion Jesus never existed "false" outright.
Again Voltaire says of Jesus, "it is clear that he [Jesus] existed"
Nothing more needs to be said. It is clear Jesus was a historical entity to Voltaire. He wasn't a mythicist at all. There is no other meaning to "it is clear that he existed" other than "Jesus existed."
You do this sort of cherry picking quite frequently G, and it is bad form and doesn't help your cases.
