No Robots

It is true that Goodman is careful to hold open the possibility that Christ is a mythological figure. However, he is also careful to insist on the primacy of interpreting what is said by and about him in the literature. In other words, the historicity question takes a back seat to the interpretive question. This is consistent with Talmudic practice in general, where "wider comprehension was thought to take precedence over historical accuracy" (The essential Talmud / Adin Steinsaltz, p. 288.)

spin

You've been speaking to mythologizers too long. Goodman gives at least three possibilities, "myth, legend or tradition", for a "constructed" Jesus, if that's what he was.

This is a more attenuated reading of what Goodman said and I chose his letter because his response is not gung-ho in either of the two camps into which most people put themselves into here. I was hoping for an appreciation of his more scholarly appoach.


spin

dog-on

So the scholarly approach is to ignore the question?

I see.

spin

Reductio doesn't make for much other than sound bite.

The scholar here doesn't commit to the issue of the existence of Jesus. He might even favor it, but his effort here was not to let Heilman sidetrack a conversation already in progress. And I used his brief response in order to try to get beyond the lines that are drawn on the issue here and talk about it a little more openly. I haven't seen much openness in this thread.


spin

dog-on

If you would like to believe so, that is your perogative.

The questioner asks a specific question, "How do we even know that there WAS a Jesus who said anything?".

Goodman simply sidesteps the question.

How is this not the same as ignoring the question? Where does Goodman actually attempt to answer it?




(He doesn't...)

dog-on

So Spin, do you not find anything troubling about this statement?

No Robots

It is not sidestepping the historicity issue if we concentrate first on the interpretive issue. In reading any text, we have to first understand it, and in order to understand it, whe have to first assume its essential truth, which we can subsequently reject after we have understood it by accepting it:

Several psychological studies appear to support Spinoza’s conjecture that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection.--"Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty" / Sam Harris and Sameer A. Sheth.

So, when we read the NT we must have an understanding and hence acceptance of its fundamental principles:

[T]he method of interpreting Scripture does not widely differ from the method of interpreting nature - in fact, it is almost the same. For as the interpretation of nature consists in the examination of the history of nature, and therefrom deducing definitions of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms, so Scriptural interpretation proceeds by the examination of Scripture, and inferring the intention of its authors as a legitimate conclusion from its fundamental principles.--Spinoza / TTP

So, the way to proceed on the issue of historicity is on the basis of our intrepretation. In this case, it is the interpretation of the NT within its Jewish context. Taking this approach, the historicity question is settled at the end of the reading, rather than at the beginning. I think this is consistent with Goodman's approach.

dog-on

But this sounds suspiciously similar to simply making shit up.

No Robots

Your suspicion is justifiable. I mean, who wants to test if a piece of meat is rotten by eating it? And it is easy enough to believe that the NT is poisoned meat if we are to judge by the way some people react to it. Some of us, though, are willing to suspend our disbelief, and engage with the text on its own terms. For us, the historicity question is settled automatically on the basis of our interpretive reading. This will always seem like credulous folly to you, I suppose. But it is the only way to really read the text.

dog-on

hmmm...

I can read those same texts while completely ignoring the question of historicity. Similar to reading any works of historical fiction.

Of course, I think that the questioner's inquiry looked for a response that went beyond anything that could be derived from the texts themselves.

Of course, Goodman simply ignored the physical question and answered a philosophical one instead.