(September 16, 2024 at 12:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The only fundamental difference between the two positions is which came first. A christ myth. Or some guy.
Personally. I think it was the myth. Let's start right off the bat by noting that the whole messianic (and herculean) spiel is that the guy fit into a preexisting myth. I think that our legendary figures (both real and imagined) are a bridge between the world of our lived experience and the world of our mythological cultures. Was there a greek strongman? Sure. Plenty. Maybe hercules has his eyes, or his nose, or his ears. Or maybe the author was daydreaming about his own boyfriend when he described the demi-god.
I still don’t see that it matters. If the myth came first, there’s no reason that characteristics of an actual person couldn’t have been appended to it. If the guy came first, there’s nothing to prevent mythic - or even divine - elements being added to his story.
A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
