Clivedurdle

Do we?

Xians have believed in someone who can walk on water, who was born of a virgin etc - see the creeds, attend any church where the I believe stuff is repeated daily.

How can a god human hybrid possibly be historical?

St John of the Cross has been mentioned.

OK, what is historical about

http://www.glasgowmuseums.com/venue/...id=4&itemid=68

I really think we must define historical - anything with any mythical part is by definition not historical. If there was a Jesus we must show how and why he became a Christ and not just assume it.

(Or did a Christ become enfleshed as a Jesus?)

gurugeorge

I think we can all agree on one important definition of "historical" (in this context): there must be physical traces, there must be eyeballing of an entity by a human being.

However, to the reasonable religionist, or the rational religious person, many rationalists add something to the definition here that isn't (to the religionist) necessary: the eyeballing of a human being by a human being.

But from the point of view of those rationalists (i.e. that subsection of rationalists who have a commitment to metaphysical naturalism), there can be only either a human being or a story, there is no possible non-human, non-physical entity (even one that putatively looked human) that could be eyeballed.

I don't think the possibility of "supernatural" events (in the sense of extraordinary, against-the-laws-of-physics-as-we-know-them, events) can be ruled out of court on apriori grounds. It does have to be flagged that strictly speaking we simply don't know enough, with absolute certainty, about the situation we find ourselves in, to say that no such things could never be. Even James Randi, while he's obviously morally certain that he'll never have to pay the money, courageously accepts that a good experiment involving reason and evidence could convince him otherwise.

However, on pragmatic grounds we can reasonably ignore that possibility - there have been so many failed supposed evidences of such events that it wouldn't be pragmatically rational to spend much time on them.

Bottom line: I don't think it's different senses of historical that are causing problems here, it's actually different senses of "mythical", depending on whether you are a believer or a rationalist, and depending further on what kind of believer or rationalist you are.

Here are four senses of "mythical", variously acceptable by rationalists and religionists of different stripes:

Mythical 1: Jesus is a story at the root of whom was a real human being (either living roundabout that time or in the past before then).

Mythical 2: Jesus is a story at the root of whom there was no real human being (either living roundabout that time or in the past before then).

Mythical 3: Jesus is a story at the root of whom there was a real human being, but he was still real and existent in another sense than human.

Mythical 4: Jesus is a story at the root of whom there was no real human being, but he was real and existent in another sense than human.

Any of these might be considered variously as EITHER historical OR non-historical to different kinds of believers and rationalists.

Clivedurdle

I used to be a three - I assume that is the classic xian position but would welcome comment on that - do xians see a human with funny bits as historical or mythical?

I am very much persuaded for the case of 2 but would accept other permutations like teacher of righteousness. But I do see the hand of (some?) Roman (s) in for example the descriptions of Jesus as being an antithesis to Caesar and the obvious scenes of a play in the passion story.

Is there any one who is not a xian who would describe the gospels as presenting reasonable evidence - but is this not the mainstream view?

ModernHeretic

[QUOTE=Clivedurdle;4613178]Sorry, but I don't think this quite follows. We clearly have mythical/miraculous stories of people who actually existed, such as Appolonius of Tyana and Sathya Sai Baba. The fact that people believed that they could perform miracles is no evidence against the historicity of the people, rather it is evidence that the people who believed in them were credulous, most likely because they were raised in a culture which was full of credulity and superstition.

As for how Jesus became the Christ, I offer two possibilities:

1) He told his followers that he was the Christ, and they, being credulous, superstitious, quite possibly uneducated, and in need of something to believe in, just believed him (they had "faith").

Or

2) He didn't actually claim to be the Christ, but his followers proclaimed him to be the Christ, because they were looking for a Christ/Messiah (perphaps because of Roman occupation?) and here was this really cool guy who said things that they wanted to hear and could perform some neat tricks.

I think either of these possibilities is more plausible than Jesus never existing at all.


Likewise, we have people today who have mythical claims made about them. For example, IIRC the Dalai Lama is considered to be the incarnation of Chenrezi, the Buddha of Compassion. The Emporers of Japan were also considered to be divine, as were many other kings and emporers. The south Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba is also believed to be a manifestation of God by his devotees, as was Jim Jones, David Koresh, and probably many other people. Hell, we even know that some people thought Eric Clapton was God because he could play the guitar so well. Apparently, it isn't that hard to convince people you're God, as long as you're playing to the right crowd.

So, the fact that a particular person was believed to have been a manifestation/incarnation of a God or to have performed miracles cannot be considered evidence against the historicity of said person, because we know of multiple people whose followers believed these things about them.

Clivedurdle

Agreed people can be thought of by others as having supernatural powers, being supernatural. But it feels like a category mistake has occurred with this one.

A mythical hybrid has been assumed to be real with legendary accretions.

Arguably this is a recent phenomenon - did not Schweitzer fail to find Jesus?



Do we have a full set of possibilities yet?

Clivedurdle

Segal Myth - a very short introduction, sets out some parameters.

There are various theories of myth that have evolved over time. Theories of myth may be as old as myths.

Only recently have some of these theories purported to be scientific. Some theories of myth hail from:

Segal notes the answer to these questions are dependent on the theory of myth being used. Some theories of myth do result in a conclusion that myth is false.

Segal writes:

It is as if historicists have misunderstood the elements of story in the New Testament. It is a classic creation myth - the creation of a godman who brings a new heaven and a new earth, who saves us from eternal damnation, that describes the end of the world.

Is not the argument then about how and why did this myth come about? Did Jesus cause it or is Jesus a character - as Paul saw it only a pawn like Isaac - in the greatest story ever told?

The hunger for a Christ, the poring over old scriptures, the classic behaviour of shamans of seeking visions are far more powerful explanations for this phenomenon labelled xianity than traditional perspectives.

Arguably the resistance to mythological perspectives is a result of academic hierarchies where myth does not have the standing of history or even theology.