Mythicism--Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Doubt

[Peter Kirby]

Posted on Vridar first:

http://vridar.org/2015/09/05/framing-th ... ase-study/

Other controversial ideas have the benefit of being in realms of scientific inquiry. Evolution, which was viciously attacked for decades and still is in some quarters, has the benefit of being amenable to literally millions of pieces of physical evidence that can be examined objectively. Heliocentricity has obvious physical evidence, as does a round globe.

Somewhat less ‘hard’ as science, but still very much amenable to scientific inquiry, are claims about climate change (especially the human-caused bits) or claims about neurobiology (and the fruitless hunt for a ghost in the machine). There’s just enough room for the shadow of a doubt sometimes–and, if you know anything about human psychology, you know that’s all it takes to refuse to believe something that you don’t want to believe.

The study of the historical Jesus (and the historicity of Jesus) is not amenable to scientific inquiry. Which is to say, we don’t know the answers. Not only do we not know the answers, but we don’t have the means to start knowing the answers. And it’s likely we never will.

All the effort in the world to show something like the non-historicity of Jesus to be ‘plausible’ is going to be futile. The hypothetical possibility of being wrong doesn’t shake worldviews. It doesn’t even get people to admit that they might be wrong. Apart from the small minority of people who have a strong commitment to personal evaluation of evidence that leaves out considerations of what others believe and approve as a belief, combined with very strong commitments to honesty and rationality, it is far too easy to ignore something’s plausibility.

The whole idea of reforming biblical studies from the inside ignores human nature. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would result in the utter dismemberment of most positive opinions about the subject, leaving us only with the grace to admit that we do not know what we cannot possibly know. And that doesn’t fund academic departments or fill academic journals. Neither does it put bread on the table for the lone wolf of a scholar who tries to swim against the tide, given the fact that scholars are cheap, academic appointments are few, and the pressure to conform on a fundamental level, with the idea that the conclusions of biblical studies are both worth knowing and knowable, is strong.

Asking someone to get a degree, either to try to publish disapproved ideas that cannot be demonstrated or to try to point out that none of it which we really want to know can be demonstrated, is tantamount to asking someone to throw away a lot of money and the best years of their life (and likely with a lasting opportunity cost when trying to succeed in the real world, which views such activity as a questionable waste of time at best).

The only thing that is reasonable to expect of rational human beings with a dash of self-interest is exactly what has been done extensively – to putter around in casual discussion with other human beings, neglecting the academic channels that almost nobody reads anyway (ohmygosh! but that would undermine the power that academics don’t have but earnestly wish they did to control public opinion!).

And the emphasis there should really be on how bankrupt the whole business is, not to engage in Coke VS Pepsi debates over the flavor of nonsense to prefer.

(... hat tip to Stephan Huller for the fifth paragraph and the obvious-when-you-see-it connection between professional biblicists and positive conclusions about the subject, even aside from questions of religious belief ...)

I suppose that the obvious blowback would be "B-b-b-but we really know that there was a historical Jesus and maybe even a whole lot about him!" ... pffft.

[MrMacSon]

... "B-b-b-but we really know that there was a historical Jesus and maybe even a whole lot about him!" ... pffft.

you spelt hymn wrong

[Peter Kirby]

... "B-b-b-but we really know that there was a historical Jesus and maybe even a whole lot about him!" ... pffft.

you spelt hymn wrong

Not sure if gender-inclusive language or reference to mythic narrative themes.

[MrMacSon]

What we know about him is from hymn/s

[iskander]

A man like Jesus was not a rare occurrence in his time and culture . Jesus may have been a tzaddik who did not conform.

Often people call someone a tzaddik simply because he is an exceptionally good person. Then there are times they come across a spiritual superhero, someone more like an angel than a human being, and they say, “Now that’s a tzaddik!


Yet the most special thing about a tzaddik is that he really is the most human of human beings ,

The true tzaddikim are supernal holy beings who are nevertheless men born of women and made therefore of bones and flesh.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... zaddik.htm

Rav Kook describes tzaddikim as follows:

The Creative Soul

The true tzaddikim, who are supernal, holy beings, in their essence rise beyond all toil and fatigue.

They would be satisfied to endure toil and trouble, suffering and difficulty, sacrifice and backbreaking labor, in order to do the will of the living God and King of the world, the Creator of their souls, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Master of all creatures and God of all spirits.

But despite their readiness to do so, they are filled with tranquillity and peace. The stream of delights flows constantly in their holy souls. A breath of richness and abundance suffuses their breath, spirit and body, their entire inner being, their bones and flesh

http://www.ravkook.net/imagination.html

[maryhelena]

Posted on Vridar first:

http://vridar.org/2015/09/05/framing-th ... ase-study/

Other controversial ideas have the benefit of being in realms of scientific inquiry. Evolution, which was viciously attacked for decades and still is in some quarters, has the benefit of being amenable to literally millions of pieces of physical evidence that can be examined objectively. Heliocentricity has obvious physical evidence, as does a round globe.

Somewhat less ‘hard’ as science, but still very much amenable to scientific inquiry, are claims about climate change (especially the human-caused bits) or claims about neurobiology (and the fruitless hunt for a ghost in the machine). There’s just enough room for the shadow of a doubt sometimes–and, if you know anything about human psychology, you know that’s all it takes to refuse to believe something that you don’t want to believe.

The study of the historical Jesus (and the historicity of Jesus) is not amenable to scientific inquiry. Which is to say, we don’t know the answers. Not only do we not know the answers, but we don’t have the means to start knowing the answers. And it’s likely we never will.

All the effort in the world to show something like the non-historicity of Jesus to be ‘plausible’ is going to be futile. The hypothetical possibility of being wrong doesn’t shake worldviews. It doesn’t even get people to admit that they might be wrong. Apart from the small minority of people who have a strong commitment to personal evaluation of evidence that leaves out considerations of what others believe and approve as a belief, combined with very strong commitments to honesty and rationality, it is far too easy to ignore something’s plausibility.

The whole idea of reforming biblical studies from the inside ignores human nature. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would result in the utter dismemberment of most positive opinions about the subject, leaving us only with the grace to admit that we do not know what we cannot possibly know. And that doesn’t fund academic departments or fill academic journals. Neither does it put bread on the table for the lone wolf of a scholar who tries to swim against the tide, given the fact that scholars are cheap, academic appointments are few, and the pressure to conform on a fundamental level, with the idea that the conclusions of biblical studies are both worth knowing and knowable, is strong.

Asking someone to get a degree, either to try to publish disapproved ideas that cannot be demonstrated or to try to point out that none of it which we really want to know can be demonstrated, is tantamount to asking someone to throw away a lot of money and the best years of their life (and likely with a lasting opportunity cost when trying to succeed in the real world, which views such activity as a questionable waste of time at best).

The only thing that is reasonable to expect of rational human beings with a dash of self-interest is exactly what has been done extensively – to putter around in casual discussion with other human beings, neglecting the academic channels that almost nobody reads anyway (ohmygosh! but that would undermine the power that academics don’t have but earnestly wish they did to control public opinion!).

And the emphasis there should really be on how bankrupt the whole business is, not to engage in Coke VS Pepsi debates over the flavor of nonsense to prefer.

(... hat tip to Stephan Huller for the fifth paragraph and the obvious-when-you-see-it connection between professional biblicists and positive conclusions about the subject, even aside from questions of religious belief ...)

I suppose that the obvious blowback would be "B-b-b-but we really know that there was a historical Jesus and maybe even a whole lot about him!" ... pffft.

Do I detect a note of disappointment here?

Methinks too much hope has rested upon Carrier as the new standard bearer for the ahistoricist/mythicist position. Following Doherty was never going to give Carrier any chance of moving the ahistoricist/mythicist debate forward.

• Before ending, it is worth noting the consequence of Carrier’s approach, including how his treatment of the Gospels relates to his overall mythicist hypothesis. By deciding that the Gospels are allegories, and that Paul believed Jesus to be a celestial figure in a realm where one could be “born of a woman, born under the Law,” “of the seed of David according to the flesh,” crucified, buried, and everything else that fits more naturally in the mundane terrestrial realm, Carrier has made it impossible for anything at all to contradict his viewpoint.
  
  Mythicism and the Making of Mark
  
  http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8026.shtml

The Carrier version of the ahistoricist/mythicist position lives in an intellectual bubble. An intellectual bubble that is devoid of any relevance for an historical search for early christiann origins. It's that old expression, 'boots on the ground', that has the potential to move the debate forward. Time, methinks, to have another look at the position of George Wells - ''it is not all mythical''...

my formatting

[Peter Kirby]

It is rational to require those asserting the historicity of Jesus to undertake its demonstration as more than a hypothesis, with actual evidence (empirical, fact-based, scientifically sound).

In fact, Carrier's hypothesis has flaws and is immune to real falsification, but they all do, and they all are.

And while there are some relative merits of some hypotheses over others, there's an ocean of uncertainty between that statement and saying that we know what went down.

Even if we accept a different standard of evidence, such as legal standards of evidence that allow an individual's eyewitness testimony (and even if we modify that suitably to accept ancient copies of written texts), we still don't have adequate evidence for historicity.

The "standard" often used in ancient history--somebody wrote it down, and it wasn't more than X years later (and it isn't blatantly wrong or contradicting what somebody else wrote down, which accidents [and monks] preserved)--hardly should inspire real confidence when push comes to shove.

As it is, we can barely say that we actually even have any of these texts with a straight face, given that they're all handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies.

Basically, yes, I'm also saying that a lot of trivia from history (e.g., the exact sexual partners of Nero, not whether there was an emperor Nero) isn't good for much more than entertainment value. That seems to be the priority of most of them in any case, given their very low demonstrated interest in minimalist history and / or 'harder' science approaches (which would involve learning enough math to understand statistics)--conversely, their interest in sandcastles and subjective, even authoritarian approaches (and the subjectivity does kind of naturally lead to authoritarian and 'head-counting of my peers' approaches that are all so common and deeply embedded in this scholarly culture).

[Peter Kirby]

It's that old expression, 'boots on the ground', that has the potential to move the debate forward.

I don't know what this means. (I know what the parts mean, but no idea how it's supposed to fit together...)

PS -- the subject line shortening is rather unfortunate!

[Peter Kirby]

Jesus may have been a tzaddik who did not conform.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe he had a baby that got rabies. Who knows.

[maryhelena]

It's that old expression, 'boots on the ground', that has the potential to move the debate forward.

I don't know what this means. (I know what the parts mean, but no idea how it's supposed to fit together...)

PS -- the subject line shortening is rather unfortunate!

Well, I would suggest that one deals with stuff on the ground instead of placing all ones eggs in intellectual philosophizing.....stuff on the ground being the historical background in which the gospel story is set. Starting from Herod I might well be a reasonable place to start. After all, boots on the ground got Herod to take Jerusalem....