Scotsguy44

So what do historians do with an ancient document where they find references to characters but in a context of supernatural claims? Is it not the case that those supernatural claims are shaved off by methodological naturalism leaving the ordinary? If not, then what do you think they do? If so, then are they cherry-picking from the actual account without justification?

Matt

maryhelena

Sure, remove the supernatural claims and opt for a flesh and blood figure underneath it all. Whether such cherry-picking is justified will only become established *if* that flesh and blood figure that is assumed to be underneath the supernatural stuff - is historically verified. Without the historical verification - cherry-picking might just have removed the entire essence of the character in question. i.e. minus the supernatural stuff all one might have in ones hand is a phantom.

Scotsguy44

Yes, at last we come to agreement on what the MJ/HJ debate is about

maryhelena

:thumbs:

J-D

As I understand it, different people make different claims. Some people claim that every statement referring to a 'Jesus' in the Gospels is true and refers to the same individual. Some people claim that only some of those statements are true, but there are different people making different claims about which of those statements are true. Still other people claim that it is not possible to tell whether any of the statements referring to a 'Jesus' in the Gospels are true. I don't see any good reason to lump together different claims made by different people and call them all 'historicists' or 'historicism'. That looks like a methodological error to me.

It also seems to me to be a methodological error to approach whichever claim it is that you want to discuss by asking how to go about disproving it. People make all sorts of claims on all sorts of subjects: some of those claims are true, some are false, and some are not clearly articulated enough to be meaningful. The question I would ask is not 'how do we go about disproving a claim?' but rather 'how do we go about evaluating a claim?', and generally speaking the way I would begin is by asking what is said about and in support of the claim by the people who make it.

So if there's a specific claim you're interested in, my methodological suggestion would be to begin by looking at what its proponents say about it and in support of it, consider whether it's sufficiently clearly articulated to be meaningful, and then examine the case made in favour of it by whomever it was that advanced it.

In this case I see you advancing a claim that the stories about Jesus in the Gospel were inspired by the execution (at the hands of the Romans) of the Hasmonean ruler Antigonus (Mattathias), but I don't see that you've made a strong case in support of that claim.

maryhelena

Well, thanks for your opinion re how you would have preferred my wording to be, ie you would prefer *evaluating* a claim to *disproving* a claim.

So, I take it you have evaluated my claim re Antigonus and found I have not "made a strong case in support" of it. OK. (I do notice that you have kept your evaluation of my claim to be private - yet are prepared to publically state that I've not made a "strong case"......)

J-D

It's not a question of wording. The meanings are different.Yes. That's what I said.That is my evaluation of your claim. It's not private.

J-D

What you took to be snide I intended as provocative, and I was no more dismissive of you than you were of the entire historical profession, so I don't know that you've got just cause for complaint.

J-D

What makes 'relevance to Christianity' the criterion? Maybe you only want to discuss issues relevant to Christianity, but that's not a reason why other people shouldn't discuss other things.

maryhelena

:huh: