Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-03-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Why the hell would anyone in their right mind, Reading in a Forum titled "BIBLE CRITICISM & HISTORY think that 'A real human Jesus' would be referring to Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora???
One gets sick of needless hair-splitting and obfuscation for the sheer sake of being obtuse.

As I have said more than once, I am well aware that nobody in this discussion intends to use the term 'real human Jesus' to refer to Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora. The point is this: because the term 'real human Jesus' does, by definition, include Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora, it is not an adequate definition of whatever it is that people here really do intend to mean when they use the term 'historical Jesus'. If you think trying to get people to be clear about their own meaning is needless, we disagree.

Grog · 06-03-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

"How else could it possibly have begun if not with real physical people?"

The same way that all other religions that feature a god-man or god-woman or both, began?
There is no shortage of god persons complete with stories and dialogue around them as if they were real people that actually lived. Probably tens of thousands such, maybe lots lots more.
Their adherents could ask the same question and if you were to grant them the historicity of their gods then we would be knee deep in a world full of gods.

On the contrary, there is not merely a 'shortage' of god persons but a complete and utter absence of them. There are no gods or god persons, and it automatically follows that no religion ever began with a god or a god person.

You are closer to the mark when you refer to stories about god persons. There are surely lots of those. But where could any kind of story possibly come from without real physical people to tell it? What's the alternative explanation that involves no real physical people?

Consider, for example, the case of Mormonism. Was there a real physical person who inspired it or somehow provided the impetus for it? Yes, there surely was: but it was Joseph Smith, not the angel Moroni (there was, of course, no angel Moroni; there are no angels). Likewise, there must have been real physical people (whoever they may have been) who inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity.

This is exactly the point. Christianity claims to be founded by the God come to Earth, Jesus, but actually. However, our earliest (supposedly) source for the origins of Christianity refers to revelations of Jesus, much like Joseph Smith's "Moroni" or Mohammad's Gabriel. Like them, Paul had his Jesus from heaven.

Grog · 06-03-2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most people treat the gospels as myth, in the favorable sense of the term. Historicists think that there was a historical person behind the myth, and some of them think that they can mine the mythical gospels to extract historical fact.

Mythicists think that it's myth all the way down.

There may be some people here who still use the terms imprecisely, but this is all old news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If this sounds imprecise, it is because there are such a variety of theories of the historical Jesus. Some (e.g. Ehrman) think that he was a false prophet who was the leader of a sect. Some seem to hold out the option that he was really a Jewish teacher or reformer whose followers decided to break with Judaism after his death.

The alternative explanation is that some person (not the center of the religion) had a vision, or imagined an object of worship referred to as Jesus, and later followers of this sect imagined that he had been an actual person on earth.

Obviously, real people were involved, but the question is whether one of them was either the leader of the sect who was subsequently turned into a god, or some independent person who was turned into a god - versus someone who had a vision of a savior.

You have offered, in two consecutive posts, two different explanations of the terminology, and they are not equivalent, which is more evidence of the confusion I've been talking about.

The two statements 'none of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact' and 'some of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact' are sufficiently clear to define a division between two positions which are logically exclusive and exhaustive possibilities: that is, it is not possible that they are both true and it is not possible that they are both false--it has to be one or the other. (It is noteworthy that when the issue is defined that way, there is no direct reference to any 'Jesus' at all.) But I don't think it's true that everybody here would accept the definition of 'historicist' as meaning 'some of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact' and 'mythicist' as meaning 'none of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'.

As far as I can tell, in your other post your definition of the 'historicist' position is something like 'the first Christians were the followers of a Jewish teacher or reformer who decided to break with Judaism after his death' and your definition of the 'mythicist' position is something like 'at some point in the history of Christianity, somebody had a vision of a saviour under the name of Jesus, and at some later point in the history of Christianity people began to believe (incorrectly) that this saviour had once existed as a real human being'. This is more problematic than the other approach. First, it's not clear that it's impossible for both statements to be true. Second, it's not clear that it's impossible for both statements to be false.

In any case, the statement 'the first Christians were the followers of a Jewish teacher or reformer who decided to break with Judaism after his death' is not equivalent to 'some of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'. Likewise, the statement 'at some point in the history of Christianity, somebody had a vision of a saviour under the name of Jesus, and at some later point in the history of Christianity people began to believe (incorrectly) that this saviour had once existed as a real human being' is not equivalent to 'none of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'.

Since you have there not one definition of 'historicist' but two (non-equivalent ones), and not one definition of 'mythicist' but two (non-equivalent ones), plainly you have not yet succeeded in giving a sufficiently clear definition of what is at issue for meaningful discussion to be possible.

You make a good point about the lack of definition in terms of what is meant by the "historical Jesus." But that knife is double-edged.

J-D · 06-03-2012, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

...
3. The existence of a man named Jesus is irrelevant unless it leads to evidence of his divine origin ...

Irrelevant to what? Irrelevant to your purposes, maybe, but it's possible other people have different purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

4. The reason people care all about a historic Jesus is if they assume that such a person was actually divine ...

That may be the reason some people care, but that doesn't mean other people can't have different reasons for caring.

gurugeorge · 06-03-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Therefore the definition 'a real human Jesus' is inadequate to capture what they mean by 'historical Jesus'.

No it's not, the meaning is clear on this board, it is "a real human Jesus" around whom the mythical Jesus accreted (or was designed or whatever). That bit is tacit because we're on this board and have been discussing this subject for several years now.

We have a mythical tale told in the gospels and in the tradition of the Church, of a miracle-working entity, part human but also in some sense part divine, called "Jesus", that's the traditional picture.

People at one time thought the gospels were historical proof of such an entity. As that position became untenable with the rise of rationalism, an alternative way of understanding those texts was sought. People came up with the idea of what is now called "the historical Jesus".

i.e., there was no god-man Jesus, or at least even if there was, the gospels aren't sufficiently good evidence of such an entity. But there might have been some human being called Jesus, living around roughly the same time or before, around whom the god-man myth formed in some way.

Now this does resist precise definition, but that's because the problem is incredibly deep and complicated (which is why people have been arguing about it here for years now). There's a whole range of possible human Jesuses, shading from "bearing almost no relationship to the gospel Jesus" to "quite like the gospel Jesus, only minus the woo-woo crap", and they have all been supported by the text (or at least the authors of those various theories thought so). It would be pointless to form a definition for each shade of historical Jesus, but having a rough idea as above is good enough to keep the conversations focussed.

J-D · 06-03-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

"How else could it possibly have begun if not with real physical people?"

The same way that all other religions that feature a god-man or god-woman or both, began?
There is no shortage of god persons complete with stories and dialogue around them as if they were real people that actually lived. Probably tens of thousands such, maybe lots lots more.
Their adherents could ask the same question and if you were to grant them the historicity of their gods then we would be knee deep in a world full of gods.

On the contrary, there is not merely a 'shortage' of god persons but a complete and utter absence of them. There are no gods or god persons, and it automatically follows that no religion ever began with a god or a god person.

You are closer to the mark when you refer to stories about god persons. There are surely lots of those. But where could any kind of story possibly come from without real physical people to tell it? What's the alternative explanation that involves no real physical people?

Consider, for example, the case of Mormonism. Was there a real physical person who inspired it or somehow provided the impetus for it? Yes, there surely was: but it was Joseph Smith, not the angel Moroni (there was, of course, no angel Moroni; there are no angels). Likewise, there must have been real physical people (whoever they may have been) who inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity.

This is exactly the point. Christianity claims to be founded by the God come to Earth, Jesus, but actually. However, our earliest (supposedly) source for the origins of Christianity refers to revelations of Jesus, much like Joseph Smith's "Moroni" or Mohammad's Gabriel. Like them, Paul had his Jesus from heaven.

If the point at issue is the truth of Christianity, then I say that Christianity can't be true because there is no God and I don't see any need to go beyond that to resolve the issue. But is that the issue under discussion here? I'm not so sure. When you say 'Paul had his Jesus from heaven', I get the impression that you may be concerned with some other issue, and I don't think your position is clearly stated.

J-D · 06-03-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

You make a good point about the lack of definition in terms of what is meant by the "historical Jesus." But that knife is double-edged.

I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?

J-D · 06-03-2012, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Therefore the definition 'a real human Jesus' is inadequate to capture what they mean by 'historical Jesus'.

No it's not, the meaning is clear on this board, it is "a real human Jesus" around whom the mythical Jesus accreted (or was designed or whatever). That bit is tacit because we're on this board and have been discussing this subject for several years now.

We have a mythical tale told in the gospels and in the tradition of the Church, of a miracle-working entity, part human but also in some sense part divine, called "Jesus", that's the traditional picture.

People at one time thought the gospels were historical proof of such an entity. As that position became untenable with the rise of rationalism, an alternative way of understanding those texts was sought. People came up with the idea of what is now called "the historical Jesus".

i.e., there was no god-man Jesus, or at least even if there was, the gospels aren't sufficiently good evidence of such an entity. But there might have been some human being called Jesus, living around roughly the same time or before, around whom the god-man myth formed in some way.

Now this does resist precise definition, but that's because the problem is incredibly deep and complicated (which is why people have been arguing about it here for years now). There's a whole range of possible human Jesuses, shading from "bearing almost no relationship to the gospel Jesus" to "quite like the gospel Jesus, only minus the woo-woo crap", and they have all been supported by the text (or at least the authors of those various theories thought so). It would be pointless to form a definition for each shade of historical Jesus, but having a rough idea as above is good enough to keep the conversations focussed.

You acknowledge the imprecision, but you say that the discussion is clear enough despite that imprecision. The discussion doesn't look clear enough to me. It looks hopelessly confused.

Grog · 06-03-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

You make a good point about the lack of definition in terms of what is meant by the "historical Jesus." But that knife is double-edged.

I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?

I don't understand your question. Can you be more specific about what it is you don't follow?

Toto · 06-03-2012, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most people treat the gospels as myth, in the favorable sense of the term. Historicists think that there was a historical person behind the myth, and some of them think that they can mine the mythical gospels to extract historical fact.

Mythicists think that it's myth all the way down.

There may be some people here who still use the terms imprecisely, but this is all old news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If this sounds imprecise, it is because there are such a variety of theories of the historical Jesus. Some (e.g. Ehrman) think that he was a false prophet who was the leader of a sect. Some seem to hold out the option that he was really a Jewish teacher or reformer whose followers decided to break with Judaism after his death.

The alternative explanation is that some person (not the center of the religion) had a vision, or imagined an object of worship referred to as Jesus, and later followers of this sect imagined that he had been an actual person on earth.

Obviously, real people were involved, but the question is whether one of them was either the leader of the sect who was subsequently turned into a god, or some independent person who was turned into a god - versus someone who had a vision of a savior.

You have offered, in two consecutive posts, two different explanations of the terminology, and they are not equivalent, which is more evidence of the confusion I've been talking about.

The two statements 'none of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact' and 'some of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact' are sufficiently clear to define a division between two positions which are logically exclusive and exhaustive possibilities: that is, it is not possible that they are both true and it is not possible that they are both false--it has to be one or the other. (It is noteworthy that when the issue is defined that way, there is no direct reference to any 'Jesus' at all.) But I don't think it's true that everybody here would accept the definition of 'historicist' as meaning 'some of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact' and 'mythicist' as meaning 'none of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'.

I feel like you are walking into the middle of a long conversation where you didn't hear the initial claims, so you are confused. I don't think it's that difficult.

Christianity either started with a historical leader (referred to as Jesus) or with someone having a vision of that savior. Option A is the historicist option, option B is mythicism.

Now it is possible to imagine other scenarios, but this is the major divide in the debate, and it is a useful classification for understanding why Erhman wrote his book.

Now, if you pick option A, the question then becomes what can we know about this person, and that is where the discussions of how much history can be mined from the gospels starts up.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, in your other post your definition of the 'historicist' position is something like 'the first Christians were the followers of a Jewish teacher or reformer who decided to break with Judaism after his death' and your definition of the 'mythicist' position is something like 'at some point in the history of Christianity, somebody had a vision of a saviour under the name of Jesus, and at some later point in the history of Christianity people began to believe (incorrectly) that this saviour had once existed as a real human being'. This is more problematic than the other approach. First, it's not clear that it's impossible for both statements to be true.

It's true, there is a theory that there were visions of a certain Jesus or someone like him who had died over a century ago. This provides for a historical Jesus and also a theory of Christan origins that involves visions. That is why some people further refine the question to ask whether Christianity started with a man who had been alive in recent times in the first century. But that theory, while interesting, does not have a lot of active adherents.

Quote:

Second, it's not clear that it's impossible for both statements to be false.

What is the alternative? The fictional Jesus? Jesus as a hoax?

In practical matters, all those who don't believe that Christianity originated around a real historic person who might have been named Jesus in the first century are lumped together as mythcists, because they reject the historicist theory.

Quote:

In any case, the statement 'the first Christians were the followers of a Jewish teacher or reformer who decided to break with Judaism after his death' is not equivalent to 'some of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'.

Who said they were? Why do you keep trying to link Christian origins with the degree of historicity of the gospels?

Quote:

Likewise, the statement 'at some point in the history of Christianity, somebody had a vision of a saviour under the name of Jesus, and at some later point in the history of Christianity people began to believe (incorrectly) that this saviour had once existed as a real human being' is not equivalent to 'none of the statements in the canonical Christian Gospels are records of historical fact'.

Your point being??

Quote:

Since you have there not one definition of 'historicist' but two (non-equivalent ones), and not one definition of 'mythicist' but two (non-equivalent ones), plainly you have not yet succeeded in giving a sufficiently clear definition of what is at issue for meaningful discussion to be possible.

I'm not sure at this point that a meaningful discussion is possible on this subject, although it's been going on for years. But the terms mythicist and historicist are useful at times.

Both the mythicist and historicist camps can be further divided into different theories of Christian origins, and, on the historicist side, different theories of who the historical Jesus was. There is an old thread somewhere with a big colorful graph that tried to keep track of the players in the game.

I really, sincerely, do not see what your point is here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.