Rick Sumner

This is another one of those things we toss out to kid ourselves that we're doing something scientific. Our opinions are falsifiable! Look at that!

It sounds good if you say it fast. Except that mountainman makes the same request, and most of us would suggest that he's made his opinion unfalsifiable.

It's simply not true. Once you move beyond the very bedrock solid "facts," very few positions in history are truly falsifiable. If it isn't all but indisputable, you can pretty well guarantee that someone disputes it, and that there's an interpretation one can give the evidence that will deny it.

That cuts both ways of course, which is why the example I'll give is for the opposition. Doherty, for example, loudly proclaims that he's found his "smoking gun," and the historicist says "What are you talking about? That isn't what it means at all." Then Doherty bangs his head against the wall because they just don't see how obvious it is.

As to the rest of your post, regarding what is "required," I'm afraid you're simply mistaken. It's just not how history is done. And maybe it should be. But it isn't.

We do not, for example, suggest that we need external evidence to determine whether or not Siccius was entirely legendary. We do not demand external evidence before we can postulate an historical Romulus. We do not demand external evidence to postulate the Gallic sack--despite the fact that our sources have obviously hugely exaggerated it--which leaves no trace in the archaeological record. Such evidence would be tremendously helpful. The absence of it does not preclude inquiry.

External evidence would certainly be wonderfully helpful. But once you suggest it is okay for one interpretation of the rise of the evidence we have, you can't simply shut the door on the other. If the mythicist can offer explanations for the available evidence, then the historicist can as well, and isn't doing anything as misguided as you suggest.

Here's the problem: The mythicist interpretation is doing the same thing. You use the texts to define the agenda of the texts. And then, using that definition, interpret them accordingly. It is exactly the same circularity, and if you condemn it in one instance, you are obligated to condemn it in both. Either it's okay to interpret both ways or neither way, but you can't just arbitrarily put the lines down in front of you.

There's this growing sense among MJers on this board that the biblical exegete isn't doing "real" history, while the MJ hypothesis is far more in keeping with historical method. It's absurdly misguided, and reflects a general ignorance of history anywhere outside of the NT.

So in the spirit of GDon's recent challenge, here's mine:

I'd like to see a mythicist historiography developed. Not one specific to the NT, but an actual, tenable historiography. This isn't going to be something that's covered in a few paragraphs, or in a post you cook up on your lunch hour, though that might be as good a start as any. Let's start from scratch and see where we end up. I want to know how the MJer thinks history should be done.

But--and here's the real catch--once you develop it, you need to hold to it. That is how history is done. Those who don't develop it probably shouldn't bother piping up in the first place, because the arbitrary nature of their history should be obvious.

This is the simple reality: Posts like this (or like Toto's repeated proclamations about the bankruptcy of the HJ position, or like. . . we could go on all day) are not describing a historiography. They're describing a hypocrisy. A lot of long-winded rhetoric hiding a naked emperor. An ad hoc epistemology designed to do nothing more than flatter your pet theory.

Steven Carr

Translation.

Almost the entire cast of characters in the Gospels are as well attested as the Angel Moroni and the Golden Plates, and if you point this out, you are called 'absurdly misguided', and ignorant.

dog-on

Well, there is that...

Rick Sumner

So how well does a "character" need to be attested?

Let's drop the "translation" and then your own bit of rhetoric, that's doing exactly what was condemned (flattering your pet theory) and come up with an actual historiography.

You're one of the loudest proponents. Surely you have a healthy epistemology behind you.

Rick Sumner

In group back-slapping isn't historiography either. It's more flattering your pet theory.

Either you've got an actual historiography or you don't. If you don't, you should probably develop one, because without one all you're doing is evolving criteria around your hypothesis, not the other way around.

It is perhaps revealing that two of the most vocal proponents of mythicism come up with nothing more than a bit of polemic and a cheering squad when the gauntlet is actually thrown.

dog-on

Rick, we can start with listing all the other historically verified and accepted deities and use the exact same criteria that was used to validate their historical existance and then apply these same criteria to this particular one.

aa5874

You simply cannot show that any character did exist unless there is some historical corroborative source.

If anyone postulates that Romulus was historical, he must provide a credible historical source in order to maintain that Romulus was indeed a figure of history.

One can first postulate but must abandon or discard their postulation when there is no evidence to support the proposition.

We have a description of Jesus that he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin without a human father, and was walking on water, anyone can postulate that Jesus was human, but the postulation will utterly fail when no historical source can be found to contradict Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.34-35 and Matthew 14.26.

Please identify an historical source that supports the postulation that Jesus was just a human being who lived in Galilee for about thirty years and was alwayys known to be human for his entire life even by the so-called disciples.

Or else your postulations would just remain postulations. Any one can postulate.

Rick Sumner

That won't work. Our other "historically verified deities" are heads of state. It also doesn't matter, because it ignores the challenge in favor of moving back to the pet theory.

I'm not looking for a historiography specific to the NT. We're looking at historiography generally. I'm not interested in whether or not we're going to come up with an historical Jesus. It's simply a reality that we're at lagerheads on that issue, and it won't be resolved. One can find one hypothesis more plausible than the other, but empirically you can't justify either conclusion.

But I understand why that's the case. I doubt most mythicists have any idea, and if posts such as those by gurugeorge, Toto, Steven Carr, and even yourself are any indication, you not only have no idea why that's the case, you are emphatically convinced that it isn't the case. So let's see why. Let's find out if you actually have a reason other than predilection for the conclusion.

I'm interested in discerning how the mythicist thinks history should be done.

dog-on

Yea, this is a problem for JC, but regardless, it is a method.

Thus, my suggestion, which of course, is not solely applicable to the NT.

I am not actually emphatically convinced of anything. I do not discount the possibility of an HJ, I just have not ever seen a good case made for why I should believe that there was one, or even who this person was actually supposed to have been.

On the other hand, most other god stories tend to be considered mythical. Why not this one as well?

aa5874

That is completely false. The Roman Emperors were regarded as men and were known as mere men who were deified.

And it was not their deification that made them human.

The "historically verified deities" were historicised by HISTORICAL SOURCES, ARTIFACTS, and ARCHAELOGICAL findings.

You have no idea whatsoever about how history is done. None whatsoever.