Mislabelling in Historicist Versus Mythicist Debate

[neilgodfrey]

I don't see any problem with the terms. It's specialised language for a specific topic.

A "historicist" thinks there was a historical crucified Jewish cult figure behind the gospels (whether that be a minimal view like that of Bultmann, or a highly fleshed out view like that of N.T Wright). A "mythicist" thinks there was no historical figure. An "ahistoricist" has no conviction either way. Makes sense to me. There are as many quack historicist views as there are mythicist views.

What does the word "historical" mean in that context? Does it mean "demonstrated by methodology used by modern historians", or "real", or something else? (The first is epistemological, the second is ontological, and any others are to be determined.)

It's pretty obvious what toejam means by historical.

I see no difference between what the christian means by saying they know Jesus existed and most who say that Jesus is historical. It is a purely ontological commitment that tells us little other than what the individual believes to be true. So if you think that is quibbling, you may as well still be in a religion.

Maybe we should shut ourselves into an upper-storey room for pedants and esoterics and address our philosophical nuances and leave real people locked outside down on the ground floor.

The quibble comes -- like my own quibble over the meaning of the word "historicist"

That merely deals with the applicability of the term to certain people. It doesn't actually touch on what "historicist" means. You just provide an unanalysed phrase, "historical reality", that may allow some wiggling towards a more relevant meaning, but "historicist" in the context we are dealing with is just a recoining based on "mythicist". It has nothing to do with history as such, other than the colloquial sense of "real in the past", a purely ontological commitment.

Omg, I spoke colloquially? Even though the topic itself is about how the terms might confuse the general public? Recall this from the OP:

I am a bit troubled by the terms "Historicist" and "Mythicist." It seems to me that they easily lead to misunderstanding, at least among the general public.

-- when addressing other/philosophical issues relating to the semantics used in a specialized discussion. I don't see anything to be gained for anyone who is not a pedant by pushing everyone who uses the terms that are understood well enough in their context into a discussion of philosophy and/or epistemology and/or what moderns classify as ancient historiography.

You can wallow in the confusion that derives from the persistent ambiguity of the terminology. The majority of the use of the term "history" is not about history at all. History specifically deals in how you know. The what you know is insufficient: it must be backed by the how you know, otherwise it is no different from christian faith.

Yes, spin. Enjoy your discussion. I'm happy to argue the abstruse points of historicism (as the word was originally coined) and epistemology along with just about anyone and have done from time to time but that's not what this topic is about unless you want to take a detour down Pedantic Lane and tut tut the general public for being so obtuse.

[MrMacSon]

-- when addressing other/philosophical issues relating to the semantics used in a specialized discussion. I don't see anything to be gained for anyone who is not a pedant by pushing everyone who uses the terms that are understood well enough in their context into a discussion of philosophy and/or epistemology and/or what moderns classify as ancient historiography.

You can wallow in the confusion that derives from the persistent ambiguity of the terminology. The majority of the use of the term "history" is not about history at all. History specifically deals in how you know. The what you know is insufficient: it must be backed by the how you know, otherwise it is no different from christian faith.

Yes; proper historical methodology ought to outline how one knows.

The whole attempt to find the historical Jesus is an effort to retrofit a semblance of historiography to the central christian belief (in light of the development of historiography in the post-enlightenment period). They inherit the what and manufacture the how through hermeneutics.

It is not sufficient to negate that how in order to say that Jesus did not exist, but it is sufficient to say that Jesus was not historical. However, due to the colloquial meaning of "historical", that difference is obscured.

The common or colloquial meaning of 'historical' is by down to tradition & authority; & simplistic acceptance of it

[neilgodfrey]

One point of confusion I have experienced is the status of theories that say Jesus was historical (in the colloquial sense of that word, if I may) yet place him around 100 BCE or otherwise right outside the bounds of the gospel narrative. I had once casually placed such theories in the "mythicism" basket till someone from the "general public" picked me up on the contradiction.