Mislabelling in Historicist Versus Mythicist Debate

[PhilosopherJay]

This might belong in the Faith and Philosophy section, but since it affects people in this section, I'll bring it up here.

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. The easy tendency is for the general public (those without an understanding of the subject) to believe that "Historicists" are, in some sense, historians, while mythicists are, in some sense, spreaders of myths. This is actually the reverse of the situation for us mythicists. For us, it is the so-called "Mythicists" who are doing pure history or trying to keep history pure from mythological inventions, while the "Historicists," who believe in an historical Jesus, are trying to blur the lines and substitute mythology for history.

It reminds me of the debate over "Universals" in Medieval times. Universals were Plato's eternal forms (Truth, Goodness, Beauty, God, etc.). Those who believed the eternal forms existed were called "Realists," while those who did not were generally called "Nominalists." The Nominalists suggested that the eternal forms only existed as names (nominally). They felt the eternal forms were just more or less imaginary. This confused me about the issues for a long time. Before I knew better, when I was still a member of the ignorant general public, I thought that the eternal forms were real because the "Realists" believed in them.

Similar misleading labellings exists in the case of the Abortion issue. Those who favor criminalizing abortions are called "pro-life," while those who classify it as a medical procedure are called "pro-choice." Obviously there is nobody who is "anti-life," so the term "pro-life" is incredibly misleading. It implies that those with that label are fighting against people who are "anti-life." Vegetarians could just as well label themselves "Pro-Life" and just as falsely categorize anybody who eats meat as "anti-life".
"Pro-choice" is less misleading as the opponents do want to take away the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion by criminalizing it. However, it is misleading in that having an abortion is often not a choice for a woman. They often feel it as a necessity and not a choice because they are too sick, too young, too poor, or simply do not wish to become mothers.

In regards to "Mythical Jesus" versus the "Historical Jesus," I am not sure how the terms could be changed. We could start saying that anyone who believes in an historical Jesus is a "mythicist" because they are confusing myth with history, or saying that real "Historicists" are those who believe in a mythical Jesus. I am not sure that this would set things straight or cause more confusion.

Any thoughts on this?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[beowulf]

There is no debate. Deniers pretend there is a debate in order to publish worthless alternatives and ...

Hotly

[ghost]

If you are a transpositionist and think the transposed story is historical then you are both mythicist and historicist. So, for example, if you are a Caesar–Jesus transpositionist and think Caesar existed then you are a Jesus-mythicist and Caesar-historicist.

[maryhelena]

This might belong in the Faith and Philosophy section, but since it affects people in this section, I'll bring it up here.

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. The easy tendency is for the general public (those without an understanding of the subject) to believe that "Historicists" are, in some sense, historians, while mythicists are, in some sense, spreaders of myths. This is actually the reverse of the situation for us mythicists. For us, it is the so-called "Mythicists" who are doing pure history or trying to keep history pure from mythological inventions, while the "Historicists," who believe in an historical Jesus, are trying to blur the lines and substitute mythology for history.

It reminds me of the debate over "Universals" in Medieval times. Universals were Plato's eternal forms (Truth, Goodness, Beauty, God, etc.). Those who believed the eternal forms existed were called "Realists," while those who did not were generally called "Nominalists." The Nominalists suggested that the eternal forms only existed as names (nominally). They felt the eternal forms were just more or less imaginary. This confused me about the issues for a long time. Before I knew better, when I was still a member of the ignorant general public, I thought that the eternal forms were real because the "Realists" believed in them.

Similar misleading labellings exists in the case of the Abortion issue. Those who favor criminalizing abortions are called "pro-life," while those who classify it as a medical procedure are called "pro-choice." Obviously there is nobody who is "anti-life," so the term "pro-life" is incredibly misleading. It implies that those with that label are fighting against people who are "anti-life." Vegetarians could just as well label themselves "Pro-Life" and just as falsely categorize anybody who eats meat as "anti-life".
"Pro-choice" is less misleading as the opponents do want to take away the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion by criminalizing it. However, it is misleading in that having an abortion is often not a choice for a woman. They often feel it as a necessity and not a choice because they are too sick, too young, too poor, or simply do not wish to become mothers.

In regards to "Mythical Jesus" versus the "Historical Jesus," I am not sure how the terms could be changed. We could start saying that anyone who believes in an historical Jesus is a "mythicist" because they are confusing myth with history,

OK, I can go along with this...

or saying that real "Historicists" are those who believe in a mythical Jesus.

Afraid not this one though....I've yet to see the Carrier/Doherty mythicist deal with Hasmonean/Jewish history. Seems, to me they are technically in the same boat as the Jesus historicists - both are 'mythicists' because they don't deal with history.

I am not sure that this would set things straight or cause more confusion.

Any thoughts on this?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Definitions are great - but in this case methinks the dye is cast. Perhaps the only way out is to ditch both descriptions and cut to the chase.......there is a Jesus figure in the gospel story. Is this figure historical or fictional. All sides drop their baggage at the door and settle in to a history course......

[neilgodfrey]

I have never liked the word "historicist". I first learned about "historicism" as an undergraduate when I read Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism. One can argue for Christianity originating with a mythical Christ figure and deny all historical reality to Jesus and still be a historicist. In our context the word is clearly being used in ignorance of its real meaning.

While the label "mythicist" has been in use to refer to Christ Myth exponents since the early twentieth century it, too, is somewhat misleading and has become a standard descriptor only in recent years.

This is why I sometimes revert to speaking of advocates of the Christ Myth theory and their opponents.

[outhouse]

For us, it is the so-called "Mythicists" who are doing pure history or trying to keep history pure from mythological inventions,

I challenge that statement.


More often then not, the so called "myhicist" christ myth hypothesis followers. Are the ones who have the least knoweldge on the historical methods used. I often see a perverion of evidence that changes the context of everything.

I also see a lack of credible historical methods in explaining the evidence we have. No one said it is great evidence, it is not, but it is evidence and needs to be explained. It is this explanation that mythicist as a whole are currently lacking. This comes from all angles. They cannot explain why Paul wrote what he did, then challenge his historicity out of desperation. The gospels are another story, I often see these attacked blindly out of desperation missing the context of early communities or houses writing about something they actaully believed in. Why did they write when they they did?



There are very few that I would call followers of "pure history" I think the term itself is a perversion of the current methodology used as well as a attack against the credibility of modern scholarships.


Now myhats off to those who have atleast tried to do a replacement hypthesis for the evidence, Carrier and Doherty and Price. I may not agree with their conclusions or methods, but the fact they tried does show more then jabs from the cheap seats.

[outhouse]

While the label "mythicist" has been in use to refer to Christ Myth exponents since the early twentieth century it, too, is somewhat misleading and has become a standard descriptor only in recent years.

.

Agreed.

Allthough I do think anyone semi in the game understand clearly and in context what a mythicist is.

If one were doing work aimed at a larger audience, I agree, Christ Myth hypothesis would be a better term.

[neilgodfrey]

More often then not, the so called "myhicist" christ myth hypothesis followers. Are the ones who have the least knoweldge on the historical methods used. I often see a perverion of evidence that changes the context of everything.

What historical method do you use to determine the correct context of everything? Or do you just uncritically assume the meaning imputed by the culture that uses the texts as the basis of its religious beliefs?

[The Crow]

The problem I see and maybe it's just me. But there is no "forum" per say to bring it all together. Oh we have the blogs of Doherty and Carrier and of course yours Neil but there are no forums on the subject per say. Just rambling here folks.

"outhouse wrote:

More often then not, the so called "myhicist" christ myth hypothesis followers. Are the ones who have the least knoweldge on the historical methods used. I often see a perverion of evidence that changes the context of everything.

This I definitely do not agree with.

[neilgodfrey]

"outhouse wrote:

More often then not, the so called "myhicist" christ myth hypothesis followers. Are the ones who have the least knoweldge on the historical methods used. I often see a perverion of evidence that changes the context of everything.

This I definitely do not agree with.

I have not seen a single "historicist" argument that its author consciously grounds in any historical methodology. I have not seen a single "historicist" argument accompanied by any discussion of historical methodology as understood among historians in history departments. The "closest" any come to this is a repetition of those "criteria of authenticity" that substitute for the data that historians normally work with.

On the other hand, I have seen notable scholars who do clearly understand and apply the norms of historical methods open to the possibility of mythicism. Some of these earned all sorts of personal attacks when they applied standard methods to the evidence for ancient Israel but their ideas have despite that been slowly gathering widespread respect. Carrier is a historian and like other historians acknowledges the value of Bayes' theorem in clarifying the analytical processes of examining and weighing evidence.