MDDM Ch. 65 strange inconsistencies

[jbor]

I actually thought the questioning of the existence of an historical Jesus
was a radical position to take, and it was one that I hadn't come across
before. As I read the essay by Jim Walker I wasn't convinced by his
arguments at all, however, and I get the impression from Pynchon's texts
that it doesn't really align with his thinking on the topic.

The snip posted from Justin Scott Coe's essay seems to want to enlist
Pynchon amongst the faithful by according Jesus's "Holiness" equivalent
status with things like "[g]iants, dragons, spells" and such. I think it's
also an extremist position, one which is at the opposite end of the spectrum
from Walker's.

I'm inclined to think that, yes, Pynchon accepts the existence of an
historical Jesus, and that, yes, his works are quite critical of the
brutality and injustices which have been wrought by men in "His" name. Like
Paul, I think that Pynchon's personal beliefs, whatever they might be, have
been deliberately obscured in his published texts. What does seem
noteworthy, however, is the ardent pluralism and disdain for intolerance
which seem constantly to be peeking through the curtain.

Like a true dialectic, the discussion which ends Ch. 65 doesn't reach any
firm conclusions on the subject.

best


on 28/7/02 8:49 PM, Otto at ottosell at yahoo.de wrote:

> This is the one with the right questions:
> 
> Did a historical Jesus exist?
> by Jim Walker
> 
> "No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus;
> no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All
> claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no
> contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named
> Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary
> writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well
> after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who
> had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical
> writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud
> or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if
> these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve
> as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources
> derive from hearsay accounts."
> http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
> 
> Historical names like Herod and Pilate have been included into the legend to
> claim authenticity.
> 
> On the star, with images how the sky looked like back then:
> http://www.quarks.de/all3/05.htm
> 
> Contrary to the scientific the Christian answer:
> 
> "Meine Schlußfolgerung ist nun, daß der Stern von Bethlehem nicht
> naturwissenschaftlich erklärt werden kann! Er war ein zeitlich begrenztes
> und übernatürliches Licht. War nicht überhaupt das erste Weihnachtsfest eine
> Zeit voller Wunder?"
> http://www.christiananswers.net/german/q-eden/edn-c018g.html
> 
> "The conclusion is that the Star of Bethlehem cannot be naturally explained
> by science! It was a temporary and supernatural light. After all, the first
> Christmas was a time of miracles."
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c018.html
> 
> After all, I especially love the last sentence. Wicks could have said it.
> 
> Otto
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:21 AM
> Subject: MDDM Ch. 65 strange inconsistencies
> 
> 
>> 632.5 "If," says the Geomancer, "like all Christian nations, you accept
> the
>> reckoning of Dionysus Exiguus,-- then Herod died in four B.C.,-- yet the
>> Gospels have him alive when Christ was born ... "
>> 
>> See Gould, Stephen Jay. 'Dousing Diminutive Dennis's Debate (or
> DDDD=2000)':
>> 
>> http://www.dilettantepress.com/Essayisthtdocs/Stephen_Jay_Gould.html
>> 
>> In _Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History_. New York:
>> Harmony Books, 1995; and _Questioning the Millennium: A Rationalist's
> Guide
>> to a Precisely Arbitrary Countdown_. New York: Harmony Books, 1997.
>> 
>> "Unless the death of Herod be wrongly dated, for Dennis the Meager,
> as
>> *we* know him,-- was an agent of God." (Mason, unattributed)
>> "God should've found another Agent," remarks Dixon, in the same
> side-
>> of-the-mouth delivery as Mason. (632.10-13)
>> 
>> http://www.blather.net/archives/issue1no49.html
>> 
>> http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
>> 
>> http://www.friesian.com/century.htm
>> 
>> 
>> 631.29 the star that bought the Magi
>> 
>> See Molnar, Michael R. _The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi_.
>> Rutgers University Press, 1999.
>> 
>> Something does not make sense: The Star appeared in 6 BC, not AD 1 the
> start
>> of the Christian system of counting the years. Why?
>> 
>> The system of counting the years was miscalculated by Dionysus Exiguus, a
>> Christian monk in AD 533 (pp 55-57). Even his colleagues thought he
> dropped
>> a few years in counting the lengths of the reigns of the Roman emperors.
>> Well-meaning people, however, have tried to move various dates around to
>> rectify this discrepancy. For example, that Herod died in 4 BC has been
>> challenged by a few people, but mainstream historians and numismatists
> (coin
>> experts) stand firm with the spring of 4 BC for Herod's death (pp 55-57).
> If
>> Jesus were born during the reign of King Herod, he had to be born in or
>> before 4 BC.
>> 
>> http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/
>> 
>> "Gentlemen, surely," the Revd, as mildly as he may, advances,
> "Christ
>> was not born any time before Christ?" (632.3)
>> 
>> best
>