J-D

The kinds of argument that sometimes blow up here. But it's now been confirmed directly by mountainman. Not that mountainman is the only poster here I would expect to decline to endorse the proposed definition of 'historicist'.

It's easily enough tested by a poll if you like.It matters because communication fails in the absence of a shared understanding of the meaning of terms. If there's a thread here where some posters are arguing that the 'historicist' position is discredited and others are arguing that it isn't, then if they don't mean the same thing by 'historicist', the discussion is incoherent.

J-D

If you're proposing a methodological rule that a text must be either swallowed whole or else rejected entirely, I think it needs some justification.

If that's not what you mean, I'm not clear on how what you're proposing is supposed to be different.

Huon

When somebody reads gJohn Chapter 1, does the author "John" speak of a historical Jesus ? Is a historical Jesus important for "John" ?

Sheshbazzar

Its not just 1 John.
Any Gospel text taken verse by verse, it is amazing the amount of statements these texts make, that without the least bit of any external corroboration or evidence, people will uncritically assign to being a 'historical' report.

'Hmmm....sounds like something that could have really happened.....
sheep! and shepherds! everyone knows that there are sheep, it is unquestionable!....

yes, he could have said this.....

there's no reason they couldn't have walked there.....

there is a city called Jerusalem......

and there really used to be a Jewish Temple there.....

And we know those filthy Jews are christ killers....

Yup. this can't be anything other than history!'


Do they read the verses of 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' the same way?

Sheshbazzar

Here is something that anyone, holding any position, who is willing may do.

Get a copy of The New Testament.

Going verse by verse through the Gospel's, Use the letter H to designate the verses that you find to be absolutely and without any possible question or doubt to be accurate 'history'.

Use a ? after every single verse that might not be actual history, or where there is a question of did this situation actually occur. (not 'it could have' occurred)

On extended dialog, is it plausible, and absolutely unquestionable that these statements actually were made at the time, and at the location, and under the circumstances that the plot indicates?
H if certain.
If there is any doubt, or any question as to the exact circumstances, a ? is in order.

Do not skip any verse.

If a verse contains multiple statements or clauses, address each one individually with a finding of either H or ?

Then tally up your results.

sotto voce

gospels, use the letter I to designate the verses that you find to be absolutely and without any possible question or doubt to be impossible statements.

sotto voce

This author's whole emphasis is on the momentous reality of the Logos, the rationale for our or for any existence other than that of the Logos.

'The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory.'

'We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard.'

The same manifested reality, in space and time, is essential to the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke. There is absolutely no point or purpose to the gospels, or to any of the 27 books recognised as the New Testament, unless there was a historic Jesus of Nazareth. The whole point of the whole Bible, from the very first words of Genesis onwards, is predicated on the creator's plan to intervene in the affairs of mankind. It is either that, or it is all, every tot and tittle, a pile of futile, wasted words.

Toto

Mountanman is an outlier. He has his own theory of Christian origins, which is that Eusebius and Constantine invented the whole phenomenon and forged the entire New Testament. He is beyond mythicism in his own category. Sometimes I think he is just trying to be difficult.

I think we've had that poll.

I don't recall any such argument. There is no single historicist argument, so the statement must have been using "historicist argument" as a shorthand term to refer to a particular position in the debate that was under consideration in at that time.

E.g., many or most historicists argue that a reference in Galatians to James as "the brother of the Lord" means that James was a biological relative of the historical Jesus. You might refer to this as "the historicist position" just to be brief. But this does not define historicism, and you could probably find historicists and mythicists with different positions on that particular text.

This is the difficulty with walking in on this discussion without enough background.

Trust me, there is no disagreement here that would be resolved or clarified by trying to refine the definition of "historicist."

Huon

Exaggeration. It seems that at least some Jews were expecting the coming of an anointed Saviour. If his name was Joshua, it could remind them of the son of Nun, who was a glorious leader some centuries ago.

sotto voce

Not the Joshua who led Israel to the Promised Land? Wow.