Peter Kirby

Would this show that only particular historical Jesus scenarios may be scholarly, but that the class of such scenarios--when itself presented as a hypothesis--is unscholarly?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

gstafleu

I agree that rlogan has given an excellent exposition of why discussing an HJ without specifying the model is useless, well done. Here is my (late evening, kindness please ) suggestion for an alternate game: provide a short but substantiated reasoning for how the Jesus story came about. I'll try and put it in Peter's original wording:

1. No rebuttals.
2. No parody posts, please. Serious arguments only.
3. One argument per post.
4. A maximum of 500 words per argument. (You shouldn't need more; you can use citations to support points that are developed in the literature.)
5. Your posting should provided a reasoned (be it necessarily short) explanation of how the Jesus story came about.
6. You don't have to be a logician/historian, but you should follow scientific method: your reasoning should be verifiable ("this is why I think so", "this" being factually demonstrable) and falsifiable ("this would lead me to reject my theory," "this" being reasonable, e.g. "finding an engraved plaque on the dark side of the moon that says my theory is wrong" doesn't count). You can post as many versions as you like, be it alternate theories or attempts to improve on a previous theory.

That, I hope, will provide an even better base for an achristology.

If there is interest, this should probably start in a new thread.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

On second thoughts, asking for a compleat reasoning in one posting for how the Jesus story came about is probably too much. It would also be more in accordance with Peter's original idea to modify it as follows:

5. Your posting should provide a reasoned (be it necessarily short) exposition of an element that you think helped the Jesus story come about.

Plus, the no rebuttals rule should be strengthened, as rebutting is apparently almost irresistible. So:

1. NO REBUTTALS, not even asking for explanation! No. None. Nada. Zilch. Niente. Nichts. Niets. Rien. Nihil. Ou. Trespassers W.

Asking for explanation can come in the individual threads.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman

1) Emperor Julian wrote that he was convinced that
the fabrication of the galilaeans is a fiction of men.

2) Julian's collected writings, orations, letters and fragments
enable us to form an opinion that he was a very discerning
man, in matters of philosophy, and the historiology of
the religions in the 4th century roman empire.

3) Other independent accounts of Julian support this
assessment, and provide substance to the conclusion:

4) It is likely that Jesus is indeed a fictional character
in a fabrication of literature first bound by Constantine
to the LXX circa 330 CE.

5) Tens of thousands of Jewish tribesmen were crucified
by the Roman imperial forces in Judea, and thousands
of Druids were crucified in Britian, and anyone of them,
or all of them could have been JC. Certainly, none of
them deserved to die the death that was upon them
imposed by the imperialists.

6) But the Jesus of the NT did not exist.



Pete

rlogan

Hi Peter.

I would need to make sure I understand exactly the purpose. My training is ecomometrics, which is applied statistics, and what this means is I view what I think you are trying to do in that specific Decision Theory context.

But it isn't the only context, and there is one major problem with that mode of Decision, or model discrimination - and there are alternatives. An alternative, for example, is the civil and criminal judicial approaches.

Regardless, I have put some thought into it and made some preliminary scribblings - but first want to make sure we are serving the same purpose.

Cheers.

Peter Kirby

I'm not sure which mode of model discrimination we should take here! Perhaps that meta-decision can be part of the game?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

If it is presented as a "hypothesis" that would imply testability, wouldn't it?

I don't know about the 'class' of such objects. Certainly all of the core Jesus-s so far proposed aren't testable and can't be refuted by demonstrations that the text is fiction at every level. I suspect that the Historical Core idea is a variant of the old Popperian "conventionalist twist"

from Conjectures and Refutations (emphasis is mine):

• What I had in mind was that his previous observations may not have been much sounder than this new one; that each in its turn had been interpreted in the light of"previous experience," and at the same time counted as additional confirmation. What, I asked myself, did it confirm? No more than that a case could be interpreted in the light of the theory. But this meant very little, I reflected, since every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light of Adler's theory, or equally of Freud's. I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation.According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact-that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed-which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

and...

• (7) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionaliststratagem. ")

The issue is...is the Historical Core somehow "testable?" It does not appear, at the moment, that there is any level of fictionality that can destroy it. Is this because the evidence is equivocal? Because it is held as an article of faith? Because methodologies assume an historical core? Because history is inherently a messier field of study? Probably some combination.

Vorkosigan

Clivedurdle

Can we legitimately class hjism with psycho-analysis? Is the difference between hjism and psycho-analysis only that hjism has huge infrastructural support and age?

Peter Kirby

No. As I understand psychoanalyisis, belief in a historical Jesus is not a specie of it. You are perhaps using a special definition of psychoanalysis?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle

I am referring to this aspect of hjism and psycho-analysis. Do not hjists assume their conclusion?

I am more saying that hjism and psycho-analysis are related species. Is hjism actually testable?