A few of my posts to the Goodacre blog re the debate with Carrier.........how time flies.
maryhelena said...
Ben, in reply to Mike Ganatt:
“All you are saying is that you give zero weight to the category of explanation being offered even though you engage in none of it specifically, which isn't all that helpful. What have you said that would lead someone else to think so little of it like you do?”
Maybe stop for a bit here. Perhaps it’s not explanation that the JC historicists are seeking but some reasoning, some logic, some plausibility, for the proposition put forward by some ahistoricists/mythicists that the gospel JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC.
Ben, bottom line here for the JC historicists is not how you, Carrier or Doherty, are able to provide alternative readings, explanations, of Pauline philosophy/theology. Interpretations are anyone’s game - a Sunday morning game for some doorstep preachers. The bottom line is that the proposition upon which your position rests - that the gospel JC is a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic type JC - is deemed to be untenable. If your proposition is itself questionable - your argumentation, your explanations, to support it is of little interest. Why expect the JC historicists to go to step 2 when they dispute the validity of step 1? Ergo - debate gets sidelined to trading negative vibes.
If you, or any other ahistoricist/mythicists who support the historicizing of the Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure, want the JC historicists to consider your proposition- then, it’s that proposition that has to be argued. Argued not by throwing interpretations of Pauline philosophy/theology around - but by reason, logic and plausibility. Ben, it’s one thing to argue that the probability of the gospel JC being ahistorical is pretty high - it’s a far different ball game - far removed from arguments of probability - to establish plausibility for your proposition dealing with a historicizing of that Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure. That idea, for the JC historicists, is just not plausible. Now, the ahistoricists/mythicists who uphold this proposition, can bang their heads all day in frustration - but what they need to do is leave their ‘oranges’ at home and approach the JC historicists with what they want - ‘apples’. The JC historicists want arguments based on reality, upon history - not arguments based upon speculation on the Pauline writings.
It’s not good enough for the ahistoricist/mythicist argument to turn one mystical idea, Pauline JC, into another mystical idea; a historicized gospel JC that, supposedly, pulled the wool over the eyes of those early Jewish Christians. i.e. they believed the gospel JC story had no relevance for Jewish history. It was all just a means to an end – an aid to understanding the Pauline cosmic JC. Pauline technicality made user friendly via an easier to understand mythical story set in real time.
If some mythicists have understood mythicism to mean the gospel JC story is completely devoid of any historical relevance, that the gospel story is completely and utterly a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC figure – then they will lose out as far as their theories finding some relevance in the HJ/MJ debate and the search for early christian origins. In other words; debates over the HJ/MJ question will be deadlocked, check-mated, in their opening move - and it’s just downhill from there - as this present exchange is demonstrating.
Yes, Ben, the JC historicists don’t have a historical leg to stand on - but those ahistoricist/mythicists who propose a historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC into the gospel JC figure - don’t have one either...
24 December 2012 at 12:53
maryhelena said...
Ben
I missed nothing in that Wikipedia quote. ..”or mythological characters as historical personages” . One big word there that you seem to want to gloss over..”historical”.. The whole thrust of that Wikipedia article is dealing with “History in disguise” - it is not dealing with mythology in disguise i.e. in drag. Before you start waving the euhermerism flag around - get some history on the table.
The proposition that the Pauline cosmic JC figure has been historicized as the gospel JC is what is under question. The proposition is suspect. That this proposition seems to be viewed as being a consequence of an interpretation of the Pauline writing indicates just one thing. And that is that the interpretation of the Pauline writings that have led to this conclusion are in error. Check your premises, as someone once said. If your conclusion lacks plausibility - then check out your interpretation.
Doherty, unfortunately, is unable to help you out here.
Yes, running to step 2 - as though step 2 is going to support your proposition is not logical. How many people were waiting for the end of the world on Friday? And why - because they read some ancient calendar a certain way. And the rest of the world - a few heads being shaken, I would imagine. In other words; people are not going to go running to that ancient Mayan calendar, step 2, the moment they hear the proposition - the world will end on Day X. They have heard it all many times before. However, when someone comes along and says climate change is here - people will look around them and notice, and will have experienced, changes in the weather. They then have a reason, an interest, to look at various theories, step 2, regarding climate change.
Paul and his visions? No denial here - just an acknowledgement that visions are ten a penny - and last only as long as the next big thing comes along. Yes, Paul’s visions, his insights, propelled the early Christian movement forward. That is one thing - but to suppose that the whole NT story is nothing more than one’s man vision winning the Vision Jackpot - is ludicrous. Paul’s insights, his visions, needed to resonate with reality, with historical events, if they ever were to have ‘legs’ upon which to run.
Prove what? That visions are of no consequence to early Christian history? Come now - reality is a far greater taskmaster than any vision by anyone. If some mythicists are running with the idea that Paul won some Battle of the Visions - it’s no wonder that the JC historicists are giving them shortshift...
No, Ben, no tricks are needed here - just some rationality, some logic, some plausibility for that proposition, made by some mythicists, that the Pauline cosmic JC figure has been historicized as the gospel JC figure.
25 December 2012 at 08:06
maryhelena said...
Ben
Well now - that’s a new one for me - “anti-mythicist pull string doll”....
Let me tell you something - I doubt very much that you will come across such a hard core ahistoricist/mythicist than myself...
“ to keep things from moving on...” Ben, I’ve been at this ‘game’ for over 30 years - and I don’t think anyone is near catching up with me yet....haha.....
Actually, I’m not interested in the HJ/MJ debate - one makes ones decision and moves forward from there. The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating - so, in this case, it’s where the HJ or the MJ decision can take one that is important.
However, when I see some mythicist repeatedly banging their heads against the HJ camp - I get a headache - and either reach for the keyboard - or more usually - just shake my head. This HJ/MJ debate cannot be won via arguments over the NT. The NT is what it is. If a forward movement is possible in the search for early Christian origins, it will have to come from outside that source.
It’s this debate, the HJ/MJ debate, that is keeping things from moving along....this debate is a quagmire that will devour time and energy that would be better utilized elsewhere.
26 December 2012 at 09:25
