Mislabelling in Historicist Versus Mythicist Debate

[Blood]

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.

Forget the general public. You will never reach them.

[Horatio Parker]

You need a focus group.

"Pro-life" is a focus group tested term. Might be hard to put one together for this problem.

How about spiritualist, a term most mythicists would probably hate, but it does emphasize non-corporeality. It is also theologically neutral, another aspect that probably wouldn't appeal to mythicists.

Which leads to the question are you making an argument about Jesus or about religion?

[Hawthorne]

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

What bothers me about this terminology from the mythicist side is that it creates a misunderstanding that early Christians either created or believed in "a myth." In my view, early Christians believed that Jesus was real in Heaven, had been incarnated at some point in history, was crucified by Satan, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and now communicates with people through chosen channellers (much the same as Christians today believe). This was not "a myth" to them, just to us looking back at it.

I agree with most of what you say here, though.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Horatio Parker,

I think I'm making a point about language. In most situations, we don't have to be all that precise with words and we get our meaning across well enough. However, when trying to describe something new or a shift in viewpoint, the old terms don't work so well. It is kind of like being forced to use old tools to build something new. They work somewhat, but you know that you're not really using them properly. I think Simone de Beauvoir faced the problem when she was trying to describe the daily oppression women faced when she was starting the Woman's Liberation Movement. If you watch Katherine Hepburn - Spencer Tracy movies from the 1940's and 50's, you understand that even among the culturally elite there was awareness of the inequality and unfairness of the relationship between men and women, but the language didn't exist to describe it as an historical and unnatural phenomenon. Beauvoir had to invent it.

One problem is that we think of myth as some fake thing that has been rejected by society generally or at least by the the intellectually elite of a society. One has to come to terms with the fact that a society generally and its most powerful and influential members may subscribe to myths, before considering the nature of mythology. That's an additional problem to describing Jesus as a myth.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

You need a focus group.

"Pro-life" is a focus group tested term. Might be hard to put one together for this problem.

How about spiritualist, a term most mythicists would probably hate, but it does emphasize non-corporeality. It is also theologically neutral, another aspect that probably wouldn't appeal to mythicists.

Which leads to the question are you making an argument about Jesus or about religion?

[The Crow]

Hi Horatio Parker,

I think I'm making a point about language. In most situations, we don't have to be all that precise with words and we get our meaning across well enough. However, when trying to describe something new or a shift in viewpoint, the old terms don't work so well. It is kind of like being forced to use old tools to build something new. They work somewhat, but you know that you're not really using them properly. I think Simone de Beauvoir faced the problem when she was trying to describe the daily oppression women faced when she was starting the Woman's Liberation Movement. If you watch Katherine Hepburn - Spencer Tracy movies from the 1940's and 50's, you understand that even among the culturally elite there was awareness of the inequality and unfairness of the relationship between men and women, but the language didn't exist to describe it as an historical and unnatural phenomenon. Beauvoir had to invent it.

One problem is that we think of myth as some fake thing that has been rejected by society generally or at least by the the intellectually elite of a society. One has to come to terms with the fact that a society generally and its most powerful and influential members may subscribe to myths, before considering the nature of mythology. That's an additional problem to describing Jesus as a myth.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

You need a focus group.

"Pro-life" is a focus group tested term. Might be hard to put one together for this problem.

How about spiritualist, a term most mythicists would probably hate, but it does emphasize non-corporeality. It is also theologically neutral, another aspect that probably wouldn't appeal to mythicists.

Which leads to the question are you making an argument about Jesus or about religion?

Hi Jay, call it unconventional warfare.

[ghost]

I think Simone de Beauvoir faced the problem when she was trying to describe the daily oppression women faced when she was starting the Woman's Liberation Movement. If you watch Katherine Hepburn - Spencer Tracy movies from the 1940's and 50's, you understand that even among the culturally elite there was awareness of the inequality and unfairness of the relationship between men and women, but the language didn't exist to describe it as an historical and unnatural phenomenon. Beauvoir had to invent it.

Feminism makes false historical claims. Recently there was a related article on AVfM:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights ... -movement/

[Horatio Parker]

Hi Horatio Parker,

I think I'm making a point about language. In most situations, we don't have to be all that precise with words and we get our meaning across well enough. However, when trying to describe something new or a shift in viewpoint, the old terms don't work so well. It is kind of like being forced to use old tools to build something new. They work somewhat, but you know that you're not really using them properly. I think Simone de Beauvoir faced the problem when she was trying to describe the daily oppression women faced when she was starting the Woman's Liberation Movement. If you watch Katherine Hepburn - Spencer Tracy movies from the 1940's and 50's, you understand that even among the culturally elite there was awareness of the inequality and unfairness of the relationship between men and women, but the language didn't exist to describe it as an historical and unnatural phenomenon. Beauvoir had to invent it.

One problem is that we think of myth as some fake thing that has been rejected by society generally or at least by the the intellectually elite of a society. One has to come to terms with the fact that a society generally and its most powerful and influential members may subscribe to myths, before considering the nature of mythology. That's an additional problem to describing Jesus as a myth.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

You're making a philosophical argument that myths are real or at least a portion of reality(I agree).

That is ahead of the times, since science has negated the spirit world, along with the invisible intelligible universe. The prevailing wisdom is materialism, and in the case of Christianity that calls for a flesh and blood supernatural Son-of-God Jesus who lived in history. So your name needs to educate in addition to describe.

Archetypal Jesus?

[spin]

One problem is that we think of myth as some fake thing that has been rejected by society generally or at least by the the intellectually elite of a society. One has to come to terms with the fact that a society generally and its most powerful and influential members may subscribe to myths, before considering the nature of mythology. That's an additional problem to describing Jesus as a myth.

The popular use of "myth=fake" is something I have warned against in this forum and its previous incarnation. It is a source of confusion for the word bears a more technical sense of a narrative (of the top of my head, so you'll certainly find better in a good book) aimed at explaining a ritual or religious meaning, sometimes explaining how things came to be or how a religious act functions. Some also include any story of supernatural beings. We think we know what the words people use mean, but in more technical cases it is important to clarify them and then share the same meanings, otherwise we often talk past each other.

[bcedaifu]

Thank you Jay, well written.

What bothers me about this terminology from the mythicist side is that it creates a misunderstanding that early Christians either created or believed in "a myth."

a. We don't know beans about what "early Christians" believed, or disbelieved.

b. We don't even know when the first "Christians" lived--before or after Constantine.There is no hard physical evidence of their existence until 300 CE. No, palaeography doesn't cut it. I need coins, monuments, or carbon dated papyrus.

c. why "misunderstanding"? Doesn't that presume that you know the truth vis a vis Jesus as an historic personage, rather than a simple, fictional character, with a deity--supplying paternal DNA--who resides on a mountain top, and a human mother, ala Herakles? Or do you imagine that Herakles is also "historical"? After all, we have huge temples, and whole cities named in his honor, with coins, and written documents, e.g. Philo, acknowledging both Herakles' existence, and his performance of several miracles, in defiance of natural law. Was he real? Of course not. Neither was Jesus.

4. Obviously, quite obviously, SOMEBODY "either created or believed in 'a myth'". We know people don't walk on water, they don't bring dead people back to life, they don't cure epilepsy by waving their arms about, and they don't cure blindness by spitting in the enucleated eye sockets. Those are myths, not history. So, someone believed the folderol. Then the documents we call "gospels" cannot be regarded as simple "misunderstanding". Someone (s) created the myths. Someone supported the effort financially. Someone believed the nonsense.

The real conundrum, is why educated folks, living today, still accept this crap as genuine. We don't accept, any more, the idea that someone can convert lead into gold.... right? It isn't just HISTORY. Its FACTS. It's natural law. It's SCIENCE.

[neilgodfrey]

Maybe the "Christianity" of the gospels did begin by picking up and running with Plato's "noble lie", a "good myth". (The idea is offensive to us today because it comes across as gratuitously oppositional to a belief held dear in our culture.) Unfortunately this legitimate idea has been stained by logically fallacious theories related to Roman Caesars.