Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:52 pm The historical Jesus has to be proved, not assumed as hypothesis.

If so much could be believed with total conviction of such a mythical person (the “Jesus” who predates and post-dates his Earthly life), then why would it take any more effort to believe it of a wholly mythical person? After all, no mainstream scholar believes any such Jesus exists who predates and post-dates his Earthly life.

---

--Ahistoricity Agnosticism

The “I am not persuaded” line:

How might we recognize inappropriate doubt masquerading as valid criticism? Such doubt generally does not attend to the actual data and its explanation, falsifying it directly. It begs the question. Or, more commonly, it suggests a comparative situation but fails to supply the comparison; a given argument might be pronounced insufficient to convince, but what exactly establishes argumentative sufficiency is not stated (and usually cannot be). Of course, such judgments are meaningless without an overt standard or measure of sufficiency. And that measure is the data itself in relation to the broader object under investigation and the current explanation in play! Do these actually match up, or is a problem discernible in their relationship(s)? If the latter, the appropriate critical process should elicit doubt, along with the modification or abandonment of the hypothesis. Modification or the clear provision of an explanatory alternative is a signal that the appropriate critical method and doubt are operative. Without these elements, a doubting critic runs the danger of merely posturing.

Campbell, Douglas A. Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2014. p. 18

---

--Godfrey, Neil (27 August 2024). ""I am not persuaded" -- valid criticism or merely posturing?". Vridar.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:52 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:54 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:19 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 2:29 pm What are you calling "a reason" here?

going without the help of (the hypothesis of) a historical Jesus is a good reason.

It is equivalent to explain the origin of the world without the minimal appeal to the hypothesis of a god creator.

What you said was that excluding the historicity of Jesus rather than allowing its possibility was a reason to support a view. With that kind of irrationality, your views are irrelevant.

there is an intrinsic irrationality, in the idea that a historical Jesus is sufficient to explain how it started, as a deus ex machina. It reveals only the own ignorance, a reluctant confession of it.

The historical Jesus has to be proved, not assumed as hypothesis. The exclusion of a such hypothesis in a given scenario is sign of a good theory.

The rejection of the assumed historical Jesus theory is necessary in order to undertake a search for, an understanding of, early christian origins. One searches for historical facts - as far as they can be established. - One can then make whatever assumptions, whatever story, one cares to entertain. Assumptions follow the historical data. One does not strive to make the Jesus assumption fit the historical data. That way is not doing historical research into early christian origins. In other words - first get the historical ducks in a row - and then proceed to develop a theory, a scenario that utilizes the historical facts.

I find the reluctance to give up, to surrender as it were, a theory that cannot accommodate the weight of history
- to be unstable and hence can only drag down the mountain of scholarly research endeavouring to sustain it.

Sure, there is no way to prove or disprove the historical Jesus assumption. How could there be when the assumption is based on nothing but wishful thinking ? Gospel story interpretations ? Heaven help us all if interpretations are given the gold star of 'truth'. Yes, we can have our historical stories - but lets base these stories on a foundation of historical facts and leave assumptions to the Jesus historicists.

The basic propositions that, perhaps, separately - somewhere, sometime - (i) a concept of [Iesous]¹ "was developed out of YHWH," +/- via 'euhemerization',² and/or (ii) a concept of [Iesous]¹ 'was raised to archangelic heights' +/- as superior to Moses, are interesting.

I'm not sure how a 'Second Power in Heaven' fits in or whether it needs to be fitted in. Likewise, for the nebulous notion of 'a celestial being.'

1 I use 'Iesous' for Jesus and Joshua aka Yeshua because Iesous is at least an appropriate representation of both names in discussing these entities in the context of contemplating the very early development of Christianity.

2 by 'euhemerization' I presume Giuseppe is referring to anthropomorphization or personification or both (it's a term I think we might do well to avoid)

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 12:59 am I'm not sure how a 'Second Power in Heaven' fits in or whether it needs to be fitted in. Likewise, for the nebulous notion of 'a celestial being.'

What if the Hypsistarians or similar gave rise to Lord IS XS?

dbz wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:03 am This is consistent with their broader beliefs, which were influenced by Hellenistic philosophy that involved a hierarchy of gods and goddesses on the midddle platonic "great chain of being" (With the perfect ONE at top and un-being at bottom). While they recognized Christ's divinity, they would of placed him within this broader framework.

dbz wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:33 am

matthewbritt wrote:Wed Aug 14, 2024 11:08 am Yes, I would say that the story came from groups in Asia Minor, probably similar to (and maybe competing with) the Hypsistarians and similar groups within the broader Hellenization of Judaism at the time.

Some modern scholars identify the group, or groups, with God-fearers mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, non-Jewish (gentile) sympathizers with Second Temple Judaism.

The main argument in favour of this hypothesis is that the evidence yields very similar descriptions for these two groups, both in terms of space and time, and in terms of their beliefs and practices (worship of a "most high" god without images, rituals with fire and lamplight, observation of some Jewish laws such as the Sabbath or dietary regulations).

---

--"Hypsistarians". Wikipedia. Retrieved 12 September 2024.

A view (as the second view described above) that excludes a priori the historical Jesus fits better than the first view the definition of mythicism.

• The belief in a pre-Christian angel Jesus could not exclude the historical Jesus.

• The evolution of the Therapeutae in the sense of the replacement of Moses with Joshua excludes absolutely an historical Jesus.

A proponent of the second view deserves more than a proponent of the first view the title of "mythicist".

The rationality comes from the good use of the words.

OP:

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 8:33 am

• The view that YHWH, meant as Second Power in Heaven....

• The view that, given a sect raising Moses to archangelic heights for the his role in Exodus, another sect raised Joshua to archangelic heights as superior to Moses (=the Law).

I am inclined to support the first view rather than the second view...

---

---

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:40 am A proponent of the second view [i.e. another sect raised Joshua] deserves more than a proponent of the first view the title of "mythicist".

IMO Title of "mythicist":
The Monad/ONE/"Most High" > archangelic Joshua/Jesus > archangelic Moses/YHWH

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:40 am A view (as the second view described above) that excludes a priori the historical Jesus fits better than the first view the definition of mythicism.

• The belief in a pre-Christian angel Jesus could not exclude the historical Jesus.

• The evolution of the Therapeutae in the sense of the replacement of Moses with Joshua excludes absolutely an historical Jesus.

A proponent of the second view deserves more than a proponent of the first view the title of "mythicist".

The rationality comes from the good use of the words.

To me, there is little (if any) rationality in your words.

I dunno what "the second view described above that excludes a priori the historical Jesus fits better than the first view the definition of mythicism" means

Re

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:40 am

• The belief in a pre-Christian angel Jesus could not exclude the historical Jesus.

I could accept

• belief in a pre-Christian angel Jesus [w]ould not exclude [an] historical Jesus
  
  in that apotheosis or deification of an historical Jesus could include perceptions of him as a pre-Christian angel

Re

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:40 am The evolution of the Therapeutae in the sense of the replacement of Moses with Joshua excludes absolutely an historical Jesus

I could accept

• a sense of the replacement of Moses with Joshua
  
  I dunno if reference to the Therapeutae is necessary
  
  I dunno why a "sense of the replacement of Moses with Joshua excludes absolutely an historical Jesus"

I'll stick with

• a concept of "Iesous developed out of YHWH," (+/- via 'euhemerization'), and/or
• a concept of 'Iesous raised to archangelic heights' (+/- as superior to Moses)

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 2:23 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:40 am

• The belief in a pre-Christian angel Jesus could not exclude the historical Jesus.

I could accept

• belief in a pre-Christian angel Jesus [w]ould not exclude [an] historical Jesus
  
  in that apotheosis or deification of an historical Jesus could include perceptions of him as a pre-Christian angel

Perceptions of him [sc. the dead HJ] as a pre-Christian angel. Said angel had the common Jewish personal name...

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:52 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:54 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:19 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 2:29 pm What are you calling "a reason" here?

going without the help of (the hypothesis of) a historical Jesus is a good reason.

It is equivalent to explain the origin of the world without the minimal appeal to the hypothesis of a god creator.

What you said was that excluding the historicity of Jesus rather than allowing its possibility was a reason to support a view. With that kind of irrationality, your views are irrelevant.

there is an intrinsic irrationality, in the idea that a historical Jesus is sufficient to explain how it started, as a deus ex machina. It reveals only the own ignorance, a reluctant confession of it.

The historical Jesus has to be proved, not assumed as hypothesis. The exclusion of a such hypothesis in a given scenario is sign of a good theory.

If a historical Jesus is like the existence of God for you, then you've got issues.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:36 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 11:52 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 9:54 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 8:19 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 2:29 pm What are you calling "a reason" here?

going without the help of (the hypothesis of) a historical Jesus is a good reason.

It is equivalent to explain the origin of the world without the minimal appeal to the hypothesis of a god creator.

What you said was that excluding the historicity of Jesus rather than allowing its possibility was a reason to support a view. With that kind of irrationality, your views are irrelevant.

there is an intrinsic irrationality, in the idea that a historical Jesus is sufficient to explain how it started, as a deus ex machina. It reveals only the own ignorance, a reluctant confession of it.

The historical Jesus has to be proved, not assumed as hypothesis. The exclusion of a such hypothesis in a given scenario is sign of a good theory.

If a historical Jesus is like the existence of God for you, then you've got issues.

this is a clear misunderstanding of the my real point.

A mythicist theory is worthy of the name only if it excludes entirely a historical Jesus.

The first view above is still subjected to the possibility of what, for example, Chrissy has written in her article:


(my bold)

...while the second view (i.e. the view held by Detering) is exempt from a such possibility. Under the Detering's view, there is more none confusion at all, between a YHWH euhemerized (as "Jesus") and a historical Jesus deified (as "YHWH").

Under the Detering's view, Joshua is chosen merely in virtue of the his position in relation to Moses. Joshua is a total function of Moses. Without the archangelic cult attributed to Moses by the Therapeutae, there is no possibility for the birth of an archangelic cult attributed to Joshua by an evolution of the Therapeutae. The idea of a "historical Jesus" is really expelled from any context.

What view would you call most a mythicist view, then?