If "Pure Objectivity" is a Myth Why Doesn't Neil Like it? I Thought Mythicists Claim They Don't Use 'Myth' Pejoratively

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

If "Pure Objectivity" is a Myth Why Doesn't Neil Like it? I Thought Mythicists Claim They Don't Use 'Myth' Pejoratively

Post by Secret Alias »

I don't expect anyone to respond but I was thinking about Neil's use of 'myth' here to mean 'something untrue.' My point has always been that mythicists chose this terminology to 'disprove' Christianity. One would be hard pressed to find Christians actually use 'myth' in this way. Yes the Church speaks of its enemies spinning 'myths.' Clement speaks of 'hunting fables.' But all of this got me thinking. When Neil says "pure objectivity" is a myth - isn't it more correct to say that objectivity is an IDEAL rather than a 'myth.' No one lives up to ideals (or at least until you die and you get a whole PR firm pumping out idealized histories of your life). But if Neil was to substitute 'ideal' for 'myth' I think I'd go along with it. I struggle in my day to day life to stay completely objective. Nevertheless I still idealize objectivity. I think it matters. When critical moments come up I try to summon whatever 'objectivity' I can muster to solve the problem. I assume that the world is being run by people seeking the common good or at least being 'objective' enough to chose a path which pleases the most people and thus ensure their longevity as leaders.

When you apply the same principle to early Christianity rather than say that Jesus was a myth I'd go along with saying he was ideal or was 'idealized.' I don't think anyone save for the most rabid believer would go against that. Of course according to my understanding of the nomen sacrum I'd go a step further and argue that the Church Fathers saw him as the idealized 'Man' figure that was pervasive in earliest Judaism and Samaritanism, that Moses was called 'the Man' or the 'Man of God' for that reason.

In short I wonder whether the jump from 'ideal' to 'myth' can really be justified by 'mythicists.' Why do we need to take that extra step to say that Jesus was a 'myth'? Most moderns or post-moderns (I never know what to say) don't believe in ideals or idealism. Isn't it enough to say that Jesus was an 'ideal' for Christianity or was 'idealized' to make a point about social change, the afterlife etc?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If "Pure Objectivity" is a Myth Why Doesn't Neil Like it? I Thought Mythicists Claim They Don't Use 'Myth' Pejorativ

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 am I don't expect anyone to respond but I was thinking about Neil's use of 'myth' here to mean 'something untrue.'
Did you read what I wrote about the myth of pure objectivity? The above suggests you did not read the post but only read part of the title. And I do not dispute that a person can look dispassionately at data. Not at all, if that's what you think. But that's a different thing from objectivity in the bigger scheme of things.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 am My point has always been that mythicists chose this terminology to 'disprove' Christianity.
The Christ Myth theory has been around a while but the works I have found most interesting are not interested in "disproving" Christianity. But I'm not a mythicist, have never set out an argument to prove Jesus did not exist, and am not the least interested in discussions about whether or not Jesus existed -- except insofar as they address -- or more usually fail to address -- historical methods that are applicable to all historical inquiries.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 am When Neil says "pure objectivity" is a myth - isn't it more correct to say that objectivity is an IDEAL rather than a 'myth.' No one lives up to ideals (or at least until you die and you get a whole PR firm pumping out idealized histories of your life).
If you read my post you would know why that objectivity in the sense you seem to mean -- God's eye view of the data -- is impossible. Why don't you read my post and engage with what I actually wrote?

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 amI struggle in my day to day life to stay completely objective. Nevertheless I still idealize objectivity. I think it matters. When critical moments come up I try to summon whatever 'objectivity' I can muster to solve the problem. I assume that the world is being run by people seeking the common good or at least being 'objective' enough to chose a path which pleases the most people and thus ensure their longevity as leaders.
All you are doing is telling everyone who read my post that you did not read it for yourself. You are certainly not engaging with anything I wrote. Everyting you say here is a simple truism. No question. But that's not the way scholars think of objectivity in discussions about hypotheses etc.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 amWhen you apply the same principle to early Christianity rather than say that Jesus was a myth I'd go along with saying he was ideal or was 'idealized.'
An idealization is a myth. But not all myth is an idealization. But why are you ignoring what I wrote in the post whose title seems to have triggered you in some way?

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 amIn short I wonder whether the jump from 'ideal' to 'myth' can really be justified by 'mythicists.'
I am not a mythicist. Why do you keep getting hung up about mythicism? My post had nothing to do with mythicism any more than it had to do with any other field of research or knowledge.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:43 am Why do we need to take that extra step to say that Jesus was a 'myth'? Most moderns or post-moderns (I never know what to say) don't believe in ideals or idealism. Isn't it enough to say that Jesus was an 'ideal' for Christianity or was 'idealized' to make a point about social change, the afterlife etc?
This statement has absolutely nothing with what my point is in my thread about pure objectivity being a myth.

Stephan, if you try to engage with a new idea and read my post then you will see that it opens up possibilities for more respectful and productive discussions of our hypotheses. Your knee-jerk hostile reaction in which you deny me the fundamentals of human nature is totally misguided.

In case you've lost the address, here it is again: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9960
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If "Pure Objectivity" is a Myth Why Doesn't Neil Like it? I Thought Mythicists Claim They Don't Use 'Myth' Pejorativ

Post by neilgodfrey »

Oh, one more thing, SA. I don't use the word "myth" in the title of my original post pejoratively. If you read the post you appear to be responding to that should be evident. If you could be a little more dispassionate and respectful and apply the norms of civil decorum that you speak of ..... :?
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: If "Pure Objectivity" is a Myth Why Doesn't Neil Like it? I Thought Mythicists Claim They Don't Use 'Myth' Pejorativ

Post by StephenGoranson »

"...less dispassionate..."
Perhaps you mean more dispassionate?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If "Pure Objectivity" is a Myth Why Doesn't Neil Like it? I Thought Mythicists Claim They Don't Use 'Myth' Pejorativ

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:37 am "...less dispassionate..."
Perhaps you mean more dispassionate?
You are quite right. Thank you. I have corrected my mistake.
Post Reply