Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 06-07-2012, 01:29 AM

It's the who are you actually referring to problem. Strip away the myth and I think Robert Price is correct in that whatever core once may have existed is no longer available for examination.

spin · 06-07-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't think HJ needs to be tied to the Gospels, he just needs to be any real person who was revered as "Jesus Christ" by the seminal Jesus sect (i.e. by the "pillars").

(Your parenthesis is purely eisegetical, ie it's not from any relevant source text.)

Talking about Jesus when we are trying to work out "historical" and "historicist" isn't central to the task of understanding the terms. (Mentioning Jesus is merely the hook to investigate those terms.)

spin · 06-07-2012, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It's the who are you actually referring to problem. Strip away the myth and I think Robert Price is correct in that whatever core once may have existed is no longer available for examination.

Come now. Try to be co-operative and talk to the o.p. with its effort to find consensus of meaning of the terms under consideration, ie "history" and its derivatives "historical" and "historicist".

spin · 06-07-2012, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...any actual historical individual..

Is that tautological?

dog-on · 06-07-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It's the who are you actually referring to problem. Strip away the myth and I think Robert Price is correct in that whatever core once may have existed is no longer available for examination.

Come now. Try to be co-operative and talk to the o.p. with its effort to find consensus of meaning of the terms under consideration, ie "history" and its derivatives "historical" and "historicist".

Alright. Historical should mean no less than what it means to say that my grandfather existed. I know who exactly I am referring to.

When you say Jesus existed. Who, exactly, are you referring to?

spin · 06-07-2012, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Historical should mean no less than what it means to say that my grandfather existed.

So "historical" signifies "(that) which existed"?

dog-on · 06-07-2012, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Historical should mean no less than what it means to say that my grandfather existed.

So "historical" signifies "(that) which existed"?

Yes. In this instance that which becomes one who has.

spin · 06-07-2012, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

"historical Herakles"

"historical xyz (aka "a real" xyz)"

'For me, there is no such thing as an "historical Herakles"'

"faith, not history"

"Historical information"

'a c[l]ear distinction between what is "real" (historical),'

'"History" alone, is inadequate to define "real"'.

I think the second and the last two cuts start to become useful in the pursuit of our terms. For you it would seem there is some correlation between "historical" and "real".

tanya · 06-07-2012, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

... it would seem there is some correlation between "historical" and "real".

Philosopher Jay has posted many interesting examples from cinema, and literature, I cannot offer comparable illustrations, but here are a couple of links derived from entering into a search engine: Roswell flying saucers history

daily mail

wikipedia

One can investigate events or traditions or popular ideas, and we can designate such investigation "history", if we wish, but what we cannot do, is then claim that the underlying subject matter of our inquiry, must be perceived as genuine, real, and authentic, simply as a consequence of our endeavors.

mountainman · 06-07-2012, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the interest of being surer we are making sense one to another, what meanings do we share in our conversations here regarding the historical Jesus and when talking of historicists? What does "historical" mean in the context of Jesus

It means that Jesus "appeared in the flesh" on planet Earth at some point in time. (See the Letters of John)

Antithetically stated, it means that Jesus "did not just appear in a book" like Bilbo Baggins did.

Quote:

... and what exactly is a Jesus historicist?

Someone who takes as true the hypothesis that Jesus was historical.

See above.

Quote:

My guess is that the latter may be defined in terms of the former.

And vice verse. The former seems to be an historical hypothesis concerning the historical existence (or historicity) of Jesus, while the latter refers to someone who is provisionally taking this hypothesis for checking, or for developing a theory about Christian origins,

Having someone on ignore in any forum does not promote open discussion and spin has had me on ignore for some time, ever since he broke out of his agnostic stance on all things, and emphatically declares that the Dura-Europos-Yale "house church" is evidence of Christians on the Persian border in the 3rd century.

Subsequently (for other discussions) Spin started a table in a thread Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions to which I contributed by adding a separate column denoted as HISTORICITY.

Historicity is a measure of historical authenticity. Something that is almost certainly historical (eg: Bob Marley) might be rated with 100% historicity. Someone who most certainly did not exist (eg: Bilbo Baggins) might be rated with a historicity ZERO, NADA or NULL.

A "historicity estimate as a percentage" satisfies all types of theories.
Maximal HJers can argue in the paddock between 90 and 100%.
Minimal HJers can argue in the paddock between 40 and 89%.
Accreted HJers can argue between zero or 10 and 40%.
You may need more than the current 3 different HJ positions

Some MJers may prefer to argue a small historicity value? (IDK).
These people like to think there is some small core kernal of truth eg.

Other MJers and FJers (i.e. fictional jesus) have zero (no historicity)

FWIW here is the table with the HISTORICITY Column:

[indent][T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}PIOUS FORGERY of MYTH
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Spectrum of options
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

From the last link immediately above:

Quote:

A Spectrum of Historical Possibilities ...

(1) The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true. Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.

(2) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.

(3) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.

(4) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about.

===============================

All the above (1-4) take the hypothesis that there was an Historical Jesus as true.

The proponents of these theories might be considered "historicists"

The following below (5-8) take the hypothesis that there was an historical Jesus as false.

The proponents of these theories might be considered "non historicists".

Besides being referred to as holocaust deniers they may also refered to as mythicists.

==================================

(5) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real person or persons from a spectrum of time, perhaps from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus. Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.

(6) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not.

(7) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras. The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.

(8) Pious Forgery
"The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

A spectrum is unavoidable in defining the spread of various possibilities and positions in the field. It may be made with far greater detail and granularity, for those who might like to argue that the Bayesian equation for Jesus's historicity was not the Robert Adams number of 42%, but instead 52% because of the weight of certain evidence.

All the theories are in the field of ancient history.

Therefore, at the end of the day, the KEY field behind the scenes for everyone is "historicity".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2012, 01:29 AM	#11
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	It's the who are you actually referring to problem. Strip away the myth and I think Robert Price is correct in that whatever core once may have existed is no longer available for examination.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.