spin

This is true for both sides of the divide. Do we stay silent? The basic problem still exists. Our views are formed not by evidence but by hegemony or the irrational reaction to it. Why not stimulate less irrationality?

That's helpful, isn't it?

All of the above is to be expected in cultural hegemony. But you are misrepresenting reality in your generalizations (for they are not totally true) and rehearsing the hegemony (excluding those who do state positions formulated clearly). Your response is only natural and unhelpful.

J-D

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more strongly. Possibly you thought I was suggesting otherwise, but that was not so.Obviously you aren't silent and neither am I, so I'm not sure what the point of this question is supposed to be.The role of evidence in the processes by which people form their views vary. Some views are better supported by evidence than others and should be preferred for that reason.That's what I am trying to do when I ask people to formulate more clearly the claims they are asserting and/or denying and/or attempting to discuss. They seldom or never do.On the contrary. This lack of understanding is extremely unhelpful. But I have had little or no success in getting through to people on this subject. If you could suggest a better approach for me, I would appreciate it.I am afraid I do not see what 'cultural hegemony' has to do with it.Which of my generalisations misrepresent reality, and how specifically do they do so?Which examples of people stating positions formulated clearly have I excluded?You find my response unhelpful. I find your response unhelpful. Where do we go from there?

James The Least

I wish somebody would write an opera based on the Gnostic Crucifixion scene, the one where the archons crucify Simon of Cyrene while Jesus just sits there laughing his ass off.

AdamWho

You know... if the biblical accounts where not meant as historical, then they are by default fictional/mythical.

We even have mythical accounts of more recent public figures such as Washington and the cherry tree. If these were the only accounts of George Washington, we would be justified in saying 'the Washington of the cherry tree account' is mythological, regardless if somebody named George Washington ever existed.

Like wise the gospel accounts are clearly fictional. No matter if a real Jesus existed, the 'Jesus of the gospels' is in fact mythological. This is true completely independent of whether there was a man named Jesus.

The same can be said for other figures that existed. The Julius Caesar who was born of a virgin is a myth, the Joseph Smith who was dictated the book of Moron is a myth, the Barry Bonds who didn't take steroids is a myth.

spin

First, I've never seen you ask historicists to formulate their claims more clearly (perhaps you can correct me) and, second, complaining about problems is not in itself constructive.

One needs to know sufficiently about the subject to be more constructive in drawing out better formulations.

I must admit that I've often seen you expending energy on transmitting messages to people whose receivers have been turned off, rather than dealing with people who could be better served with some mentoring.

As I said, that "is to be expected in cultural hegemony." Hegemony is transparent. It is the institutionalized normalcy that makes it part of the cultural fabric. Why, for example, to look into another context do politics in America feature such a tiny sliver of the political spectrum, crystalized into two parties, the ultra-right-wing militaristic conservative plutocratic republicans and the limp not quite so right-wing, not quite so militaristic, not so conservative, not so plutocratic democrats? There are lone voices heard around the country crying in the wilderness. People from a lot of other countries can understand why Americans can often be so politically naive. And the average American says, wtf are they on about?

The cultural straight-jacket we live in supports the institutions that favor the historicizing of Jesus. Your reaction above, not seeing "what 'cultural hegemony' has to do with it", is a reflection of hegemony.

Your generalizations did not show recognize those formulations and claims that do have clear meanings.

That's the function of generalizations that sublimate minority positions.

I am attempting to explain what is going on and so point to a way ahead. It's not just a simple matter of people not formulating notions clearly enough. It is an institutional matter of removing the tools from the individual's hands.

I would really love to see the disbanding of the adversarial approach to formulating notions and views. However, it is part of the hegemonic way of things. There are frequently more than two sides to things and we need to be able to carry all views ahead and see what they are based on and where they can go.

On the issue of the historical Jesus, which is what interests a lot of us, there has been a strong institutional interest in the notion and the positive side has received an immense academic backing with conferences, symposia, perennial articles and books. There is a huge amount of money invested in the study. It is ultimately the result of the enlightenment which helped trigger a great advance in the sciences and rational pursuit of the humanities, such that historicity became a much wider notion and concern. It was inevitable in the changing climate that saw the rejection of biblical underpinnings for the structure of the world that historicity be turned to the existence of Jesus, which until the enlightenment had been a certainty. On top of the millennium and a half of straight apologetic we now have a few centuries of scholarly defense of hegemony. It might not be understood or appreciated by the unlearned, but the process is purely hegemonic. The conclusion is assumed and historical Jesus research works to uncover what can be understood of that Jesus.

Fostering a context in which alternatives can be espoused and developed with some helpful, constructive input is a positive for the intellectual community. They may ultimately be crap, but that can be decided "in due course" of analysis. A convivial community is necessary for us to achieve anything. If "people don't always understand how to formulate an existence claim so that it has a clear meaning", perhaps you can find convivial means of helping.

mountainman

Have a look at Nag Hammadi Codex 7.3, manufactured c.350 CE, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter.


The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure. According to this text:

"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

It warns against the Bishops .....

"And there shall be others of those who are€ outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."

Sheshbazzar

Yes. I have read many. Most are quite hilarious.

Joan of Bark

If Jesus was completely fictional, the accounts of him would be more consistent ... that's a literary argument, but a good one.

... and now Mountainman and aa will tear a strip off me.

spin

They'd need to get a grip before they could.

Littlejohn

"...If Jesus was completely fictional, the accounts of him would be more consistent.."

This is called good-sense (common sense) in Italy!...


Greetings

Littlejohn

.