Ben C Smith

What statement are you referring to?

What does this, even if true (and it is partly so), have to do with anything I said? You are confusing the amount of evidence available for a position with whether or not the reasons one holds that position are religious.

Ben.

dog-on

Ah I see the misunderstanding.

I didn't mean to infer that April D. was religious or not, I meant to infer that the historicist's position relies on two basic corner stones of "evidence":

1. Scriptural
2. Revelatory

Camio

That is the great dispair of historical science, especially ancient History, isn't it? I keep reading here and there that if we were to gather what we know for certain regarding Antiquity, a few pages/books would suffice. Therefore, or so it is said, we "must" indulge in taking into account some more dubious hypotheses. Quantity over quality somehow. Anyway, I don't object to that approach, as long as it is reminded that we are dealing with hypotheses and not facts. I am under the impression that this triviality is sometimes forgotten, with people boasting about their favorite theory as though it was a certainty. Not a very scientific attitude if you ask me.

Sorry for the slight off-topic.

Ben C Smith

My apologies for misunderstanding you.

I still do not understand your comment (apparently).

I am an historicist, and my position relies neither on the fact that any given text is scripture nor on any revelation that has been either directly or indirectly granted me.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

If you mean that for every Actium there are a hundred sieges of Troy, or that for every Caesar Augustus there are a hundred King Arthurs, then I think I agree. Few things are certain in ancient history.

Is that what you got from that blog post? And does forgetting this triviality automatically make one guilty of making statements of religious faith?

Ben.

dog-on

Are you sure?

Maybe, for you, only indirectly then. Though at it's root, those two basic corner stones still stand.

:Cheeky:


(Unless you want to present some evidence not actually derived from either scripture or from revelation for us to examine.)

Ben C Smith

Yes.

For number 1, I do not personally regard any Christian texts as scripture. In fact, I think some of the writings that are called Christian scripture actually tell against the very idea of there ever being such a thing as Christian scripture (refer to 2 Corinthians 3, for example).

For number 2, the existence of an historical Jesus has never been revealed to me, nor am I eager (to say the least) to seize on revelations to others on this issue as binding on my own judgment.

Indirectly, perhaps, in the sense that, for number 1, I use texts (such as the Pauline epistles) that some call scripture, although of course I do not regard them as scripture myself. I use those texts as an historian would. Number 2, OTOH, is not even indirect; it is moot.

Why do they still stand? Do atheists or agnostics who accept an HJ depend on writings they consider scripture, or do they depend on revelations?

Ben.

dog-on

They still stand because any materials that have ever been brought into the fray, when trying to grok an HJ are, at their core, based on one of these two things.

If you remove these materials from the discussion, what are you going to base an HJ on, exactly?

Ben C Smith

Are you recommending removing from the discussion any materials that somebody (anybody?) calls or has called scripture? IOW, even if I do not accept or treat the Pauline epistles as scripture, but use them simply as ancient documents in an attempt to reconstruct an HJ, I am guilty of using scripture as a base for an historical Jesus? Is that your position?

Ben.

aa5874

What is certain is that they do not depend on any historical evidence.