On the use of "historicists" to label the people absolutely persuaded about the historicity of Jesus

[Chrissy Hansen]

One can take a position without using strange and confusing terminology. I firmly think there was a historical Jesus. I do not think "historicist" is a useful term for describing that position due to the fact it already refers to a completely different topic, and most scholars know that topic more than this exceptionally fringe debate.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Returning to the original complaint, Jesus historicism is not a noun, but it is a noun phrase. That is, the whole phrase can convey a specific meaning of its own which is different from what someone might infer from the meanings of its component parts.

Colleague Hansen is well within their prerogative to decline to use the phrase, but notes something in passing which may be of relevance to the original complaint:

...the term is ...not used anywhere but specifically in this debate

where, of course, this debate refers to discussions about whether or not Jesus is a fictional or mythological figure. What other kind of figure might Jesus be? "Historical" maybe? I think maybe so.

The debate provides a context within which the noun phrases Jesus mythicist and Jesus historicist meaningfully distinguish between the debaters' stances. Jesus Blue and Jesus Red would also serve, but it might be harder to remember which color goes with which debating stance.

Where Giuseppe's train seems to have left the tracks is that he used a short version of the label - the Italian for historicist rather than the Italian for the full noun phrase Jesus historicist. Such short names are permissible when the context of "position in a debate about whether Jesus is a historical figure" clearly obtains. If not, then other meanings and uses of the term historicist wil predictably occur to listeners and readers.

Just as well, then, that we don't say "Jesus Red." Imagine if Giuseppe called somebody a "Red" without a clear context.

Gesù storicista? (Since the whole noun phrase is the bearer of the intended meaning, you really don't need an adjective like the not-really-English Jesusonian to deliver that meaning.)

[Peter Kirby]

Not sure what the issue is, but I'd quibble over the term "absolute certainty". I call myself a "Jesus historicist" because I believe some kind of a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the earliest texts that we have. But I'm nowhere near "absolute certainty". The quality of evidence is too poor for that.

Giuseppe, can you explain a little more why you are using "absolute certainty" here? If someone thinks it is more likely than not that there was some kind of a historical Jesus, how would you label them?

...and the following definition by Raphael Lataster in an academic article:

...Jesus historicists (those positing that Jesus' historicity is a certainty)

Lataster writes later:

the critic will note that history deals not in certainties, but with probabilities

Is Lataster constructing a strawman that goes beyond the definition of "Jesus historicist"? I am going to suggest that, even though particular "Jesus historicists" offer expressions of certitude, Lataster's definition here is constructed to make the position of "Jesus historicists," generally, harder to defend. If that suggestion is plausible enough, Lataster's paper would be an unreliable source of information for a definition of "Jesus historicist."

By his own description, "Jesus historicists" put themselves in the position of positing something that is necessarily outside of "history," given his statement that history doesn't even deal in certainties at all. So it's easy to see how his definition makes it much easier for Lataster to criticize "Jesus historicists," as it allows him to dispense with them all without addressing those who view it as a matter of "probabilities" instead of certainties.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Returning to the original complaint, Jesus historicism is not a noun, but it is a noun phrase. That is, the whole phrase can convey a specific meaning of its own which is different from what someone might infer from the meanings of its component parts.

The problem being that most of the time no one bothers putting the "Jesus" in front of that term and just refers to "historicists" or "historicism" blanketly, which are terms already in usage widely in other fields denoting a subject and critical theory approach that is completely distinct from this fringe debate. Hence the problem.

[Giuseppe]

Returning to the original complaint, Jesus historicism is not a noun, but it is a noun phrase. That is, the whole phrase can convey a specific meaning of its own which is different from what someone might infer from the meanings of its component parts.

The problem being that most of the time no one bothers putting the "Jesus" in front of that term and just refers to "historicists" or "historicism" blanketly, which are terms already in usage widely in other fields denoting a subject and critical theory approach that is completely distinct from this fringe debate. Hence the problem.

yes but while in English blogosphera it is only a mere laziness that makes one omit the "Jesus" in front of that term and just refer to "historicists" , the problem is that I can't translate "Jesus historicist" in Italian as "Gesù storicista" and not even as "storicista gesuano". Both the expressions are cacophonical, to put it bluntly.

For example, "Jesus cult" in Italian is elegantly translated as "culto di Gesù". "Jesus myth" as "mito di Gesù". But "Jesus historicist" cannot be translated as "storicista di Gesù". The problem is even more evident for "Jesus Agnostic": I give up a priori to translate it and are obliged to mention it in English everywhere I need it.

[Chrissy Hansen]

That just sounds like more reason to consider the term arbitrary and useless. If it doesn't even translate well (and it doesn't into other languages either), requiring you to render in English this obscure and confusing phrase only known in a pretty hazy and fringe blogosphere, then maybe we should just collectively look for different terminology that actually makes sense.

[Giuseppe]

maybe we should just collectively look for different terminology that actually makes sense.

some idea about this new terminology?

[Giuseppe]

Mythicist Edouard Dujardin and (today) Patrick Boistier use "euhemerists" instead than "historicists". It would make a lot of sense.

No problem, in this case, with "evemeristi" in Italian.

[Peter Kirby]

Mythicist Edouard Dujardin and (today) Patrick Boistier use "euhemerists" instead than "historicists". It would make a lot of sense.

No problem, in this case, with "evemeristi" in Italian.

That would not be a neutral term. I don't see anyone self-describing this way.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Carnalist, maybe. It is not clear to me whether there is also a problem with mythicist.