gurugeorge

Yes, therefore the answer is not that "Spiderman was in New York" is historically false, but that the statement is historically MEANINGLESS, precisely because there is no actual referent for "Spiderman" in the real world, about whom anything could be said to be historically true OR false.

Think of it this way, something that's true or false must be verifiably so, at least in principle.

How do you verify the doings of a fantasy figure?

aa5874

Again, what you assert is not logical.

The claim that Spiderman exists in the REAL world and actually was in New York is historically false once the claimant does NOT admit the non-historicity of Spidermen.

The claim that Harry Potter exists in the REAL world and actually was in New York is historically false the claimant does NOT admit the non-historicity of Harry Potter.

The claim that HITLER exists today in the real world and was actually in New York today is historically false unless the claimant ADMITS that the REFERANT, Hitler, does NOT exist today

One does NOT verify the doings of a fantasy figure, One Verifies claims.

For example, if I claim that my father was in New York in August 2011 then my claim is historically false once I did NOT ADMIT my father died more than a year ago.

It is CLAIMS that are examined and found to be historically true or false.

J-D

I don't know what you mean by 'historically false'. I didn't use that expression.

Some statements are accurate reports of events which actually occurred; others aren't. It is meaningful to ask about any statement 'Is it an accurate report of events which actually occurred?' In some cases it may be uninteresting to ask the question, or unimportant, or not worth bothering about, but it's never meaningless. If the statement is 'Spiderman was in New York on the day the Skrulls invaded', then the answer is 'No, that statement is not an accurate report of events which actually occurred'.

gurugeorge

It can't be an accurate report or an inaccurate report, because there is no referent "Spiderman" (or "Skrulls") - even though there is a referent "New York", it still can't be an accurate or inaccurate report about New York.

It's not in the category of potential reports (that could be accurate or inaccurate) at all, it's in the category of fantasy statements.

So: with those texts from antiquity, do you know enough about them (their provenance) beforehand to say whether they are fantasy statements (statements that couldn't be either accurate or inaccurate) or potential reports (statements that could be accurate or inaccurate)?

aa5874

You are WRONG.

Once the claimant declares that his report is historically accurate then it can be shown to be false.

gurugeorge

But aa, the last claim is not the same as the first two, because Hitler was a real, historically verifiable human being, it just so happens we also know that he died at a certain time before today, so on that basis the claim is false.

Whereas the first two cases are different - neither Harry Potter nor Spiderman exist. Historical claims simply do not apply to them.

You cannot verify the claim that Harry Potter or Spiderman were in New York if they aren't real, physical entities. There's no "there" there to verify.

If someone were to believe Harry Potter actually existed, on the other hand (read: an early Christian believed there was a superhero-like "Jesus Christ" character, part divine, part man, who had been on earth at some point), then while THEY believe that their claim that Harry Potter ("Jesus") was in New York (e.g. Capernaum) has historical validity (i.e. while they believe it could be true or false in that Harry Potter exists but he might have been somewher else other than New York at the time, it's just that they think he was in New York at the time) WE (in possession of the objective truth about Harry Potter, i.e that he is a fictional character - we know the author, etc., etc.) can see that their claim is neither true nor false but NONSENSICAL, and we can also see that their pseudo-historical thought "well, Harry might have been somewhere else at the time, but I think I can show he was in New York" is not just an invalid argument, but actually a nonsensical thought.

But of course we are not in the like case with "Jesus" as we are with Harry Potter, all the evidence we have could fit either scenario - that "Saviour Messiah/Joshua Messiah" is a fantasy with part human/part divine aspect, or that he is fantasy layered over a kernel of some real person's doings.

We may never be in a position to make a clear judgement about "Jesus" (of the kind we could make about Harry Potter, and inform the poor fan about).

None of this is as simple as "reading off" either "fantasy figure" or "man mythified" from the texts. That cannot be done until we get "behind the scenes" somewhat (in an analogous way to the way we're "behind the scenes" with Harry Potter by knowing about J K Rowling, and "behind the scenes" with Spiderman by knowing about Steve Ditko and Stan Lee - or, alternatively, analogously to the way we're "behind the scenes" with deified Emperors by knowing their history and having archaeological evidence of them) by knowing who wrote the texts, when, why, and/or finding evidence of a human being who might fit the "Joshua Messiah" bill.

IOW the logic flows THAT way - FIRST we have to know (by looking outside the internal meaning of the texts at the real world - e.g. the real authors of the text, or real "Jesuses" in Palestine roundabout that time) whether we're dealing with a man mythified or a pure myth, THEN we are able to either extract history about the man mythified from the texts, or clearly see that there is not even the faintest possibility of a shred of actual history there.

That cannot be decided from staring at the texts and reading our own prejudgement of the issue into them.

Yes, claims about physical entities about whom things could be historically true or false.

However, historical claims about fantasy entities are not true or false but meaningless.

This is quite an odd conversation I'm having between you and J-D, because you are making almost the mirror opposite errors. He (like many HJ-ers) is taking for granted the validity of the judgement "Christ was a human being", and you are taking for granted the vailidity of the judgment "Christ is a fantasy character".

In reality one of you is right about the substantive claim, but both of your arguments are invalid so long as they presuppose what you are trying to prove.

But neither of you seem to be aware that you're doing this, i.e. committing the petitio principii fallacy. :huh:

Just to add one more thought that may make the above clearer: you can have true/false claims about Spiderman or Harry Potter - but those cannot be true/false HISTORICAL claims, they are verified by looking at the fantasy writing as fantasy writing, i.e. did J K Rowling write that the fictional Harry Potter was in a fictional New York? In the comics, Spiderman actually lives in New York, so it's absolutely true that Spiderman was in New York, BUT THAT FICTIONAL TRUTH IS NOT AT THE SAME TIME A HISTORICAL FALSEHOOD. It simply has nothing whatsoever to do with history AT ALL.

J-D

Even if the distinction you make is a valid one, a statement which is not a report is necessarily not, a fortiori, an accurate report. If the statement 'Spiderman was in New York on the day the Skrulls invaded' is not a report at all, then a fortiori it is not an accurate report. The question 'Is that statement an accurate report of events which actually occurred?' is still a meaningful one, and 'No' is still a correct answer to it, even if you want to insist that 'No, it's not even a report at all because there are no referents for "Spiderman" or "Skrulls" ' is a fuller and more informative answer.

You seem to think that the question 'Is this statement an accurate report?' presupposes that the statement under discussion is a report of some kind and that the only remaining issue is whether it's an accurate report or an inaccurate report. That is not correct.

gurugeorge

It may be an accurate fictional report - of the fictional character, it may be true or false that they're in a certain fictional place (that's based on a real place).

What it's not, and never can be, is anything at all to do with history (i.e. it cannot be an accurate or inaccurate report of something that actually happened).

It is not meaningful except in the sense that you can look in the comic and verify it. But you can't look at the world and verify it.

No, it's rather that there are two ways in which that statement could be meaningful - fictionally or historically. And if the character is fictional then it can't possibly be historically meaningful, there can't be anything historically right or wrong about it.

The fact is, we're not yet (and may never be) in a position to tell whether the "Joshua Messiah" story is a fantasy with a human aspect, or a fantasy layered over a human. But because we're in that position of not knowing for sure, we cannot meaningfully say "sentence x in the gospels may or may not be an accurate report of what actually happened".

Because it may not be potentially a report of an actual happening at all, it may just be a fictional report of a fictional happening.

IOW, "may not be an accurate report" is not equivalent to "fictional". The "may not be an accurate report" pertains to failure to verify a statement of fact. "Accuracy" in historical terms can only pertain to the real world, and a failure to be accurate historically is not equivalent to being fiction.

Therefore if you are saying "these doings of Jesus written here may or may not be historical", you are already presupposing that "the doings of Jesus" aren't fictional (i.e. not not-historical but a-historical, nothing to do with history at all).

So here's your statement of "the question" again ( ):-

Once again, that is not and cannot be "the question". "The question" must first be:- "is this history or fantasy?"

Only after we have made some inroads into answering that question (which is split up into the "who wrote", "for whom", "when" and "what for" questions) can "the question" be whether the non-fantastic parts may contain some history.

Because if it's fantasy, any given bit of them could NEVER IN ALL ETERNITY contain history (re. "Jesus" - of course there might be incidental bits of history mentioned in them as part of the fictional backdrop), whether that bit is fantastic or non-fantastic.

Or IOW, once we've eliminated the fantastic bits from the "Jesus" story, that does not mean that what we're left could be history, because the whole thing could be fantasy. We don't yet know the answer to the prior question.

aa5874

Again, once the CLAIMANT does not acknowledge that Hitler has died long ago then it is historically false to have claimed Hitler was in New York today.

There is ABSOLUTELY no difference if the CLAIMANT refuses to ADMIT that Harry Potter and Spiderman do not exist and claim that both of them are RIGHT NOW in New York City at TIME SQUARE eating ICE CREAM with OBAMA.

mountainman

You might consider adding it to your dictionary of terms with some consensus of agreement. One might suspect it to be the antithesis of 'historically true', but that may not be in your dictionary either.

And FWIW I think you are probably correct in saying (elsewhere?) that if we removed the stuff which was historically false and impossible from the new testament, an appropriate manner of describing the overall message of what remains, would be "shorter".