judge

Hmmm it is labelled a beginners guide.
So you think Spin is saying...""hey, you beginners, here are the possible positions you can take. (even if no actually takes this view)"

If not then what (do you think) is the purpose of a beginners guide?

Song of Erra

If beginners are introduced only to what is currently in vogue, won't that limit their outlook in a way that's not in keeping with the “rationalist, free thinking, scientific approach”?

You may be right that spin has included his own “pet” category, but I can hardly imagine what harm it does—and I suspect he's more interested in avoiding the “slur” of being a mythicist, and less so in appeasing the “category police”. A pyrrhic victory is all you'd get, I'm afraid.

maryhelena

A mythicist? Our spin......
Before the sky falls down on you - spin is our resident super-duper Skeptic.....:lol:

(unless of course he has had a secret Damascus road enlightenment - but shame on him - he could let us know so we could get the party going - the champagne has been on ice for too long now......)

Song of Erra

I'm sure you're very proud of him, too. I didn't mean to hint that he was anything other. It's just been my reading of the situation over at RS that people think he's a “myther with reservations”. He's pointed them all to this chart, so I'm sure part of its purpose is to carve out some middle-ground for him to occupy while he tries to elucidate things for the “myther bashers”. I can't see him getting rid of his own row in the chart until all those people concede defeat.

maryhelena

Yes, the 'traditional' category in the chart seems to be causing a bit of an issue - but I don't think spin is keeping it there for his own position. Spin, with a Jesus position - doubtful. Being a skeptic will keep spin from committing to any of the categories in the chart....
Why he is keeping the 'traditional' category goodness only knows....

Proud of spin? - great intellect which needs a dash of inspiration or imagination to produce it's full glory.....

(.........running for the door before the Maestro raises his Baton and calls for order in the pit.......)

spin

Just on the subject of the traditional Jesus, the notion of tradition is very important to the position, hence the name, for want of better. The position revolves around the problems of traditions and how one can--if at all--derive any historical information from traditions. The stupidity of probabilities, modern common sense, or application of rules for extracting history from them brings derisive laughter from me. It's like expecting to send a meteor into the sun and be able to say where any of its parts are at any given time. Few data that enter a tradition will retain any history. One may point to a particular event, such as the census in Luke, and claim that that supplies a historical date, and, by itself, it does, but how is that date relates to the tradition is a mystery. It's a terminus a quo for the datum attached to that particular date, but how does it relate to the rest of the tradition? When did the tradition start and when did the datum enter the tradition? Pilate for example implies a date range, but when did Pilate get absorbed into the tradition? The tradition is unable to tell you, though of course it couldn't be before Pilate. At what stage was the tradition when Pilate entered it? The tradition doesn't say. We are slightly fortunate because we have a few visions of part of the tradition in the various gospels. There is the possibility of setting up some sort of relative chronology of some of the elements in the tradition.

The Jesus of this view is--at the moment--unreachable and he always may be. We have no way in and the tradition cannot help. Imagine that the tradition is an avalanche that we can see at one moment of its downhill course. From your position all you can see is the event front. What it has absorbed and is dragging with it is behind that event front. The tradition, as far as we can see, is the event front in that moment. Paul may have been the prime mover of the event, but there is no way to be sure, as things stand. The tradition itself keeps its secrets jealously.

This is part of what is behind the notion of traditional.

I haven't seen anything about the notion of tradition in the views published by R.G. Price. I have separated the bogus brigade, so people can get an idea of the differences. I've separated the view of the "real" Jesus from the "historical" Jesus. I've also separated out the agnostic views for the moment.


spin

spin

There have been a number of not too bright HJers & MJers here who couldn't understand past their own notions of black and white. [Important factoid omitted: in doing so, they couldn't but put me in the opposing camp.] Incidentally, both the quotes in my sig over there are about the issue. Adversarial thought is stultifying, yet time and again I find myself having to deal with it, giving in to the institution of adversarialism to get out of the false dichotomy. Dorothy has come from the black and white world of Kansas over the rainbow. And of course I parody the stupidity of Holmes's most famous dictum. Ruling out the impossible yields truth, indeed! How the fuck could anybody take such nonsense seriously? The real world is just not that simplistic.

Of course the simpletons have to hang on to the false dichotomy; here, HJ and MJ, impossible or truth.


spin

maryhelena

OK, spin, that all sounds great - but the issue is there does not seem to be a Published Proponent of this view to fit into the 'traditional' category - so maybe you might have to just put yourself into the chart after all - proponents = Skeptics Anonymous.....

That way you can have the best of both worlds - a position without a position - or something like that...:devil:

spin

Why? The position is unique and hopefully, with consideration, understandable. It doesn't need a published proponent to be meaningful. Perhaps you'd like to complain that it isn't intelligible. If not, what's the problem?


spin

Song of Erra

The problem with the dictum is you can't prove a negative. The problem with certain people is they think that by shooting all the black crows they can prove that purple ones exist.