Posted: Nov 05, 2015 3:30 pm
by Cito di Pense
Shrunk wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:If you think history is mainly about what-happened-when, then you badly misunderstand the charges of 'denialism'.


You may be correct. I don't know much about McGrath, so I'm not sure how much I should read into the fact that he carefully parses his statements so as to make clear that he is making the specific and narrow point that historians are not able to determine whether Jesus' miracles actually took place, which leaves open the broader question of whether he believes they did take place.

And even if he doesn't, I guess it's worth noting that I've never heard the term "denialist" used against someone who believes King Arthur was entirely a mythical figure. Because the evidence in favour of a real King Arthur is so much less than that for a real Jesus? Or because people just don't get so worked up when it is suggested there never was an Arthur? McGrath's distinction between "conservative" Christians, and the other kind of Christian (of which I suppose he is one) may be germane to that.


Details, details. Myth Jesus vs Walking Talking Jesus is a proxy for something else. Why would we even care if there was a human being at the center of the story? I'll tell you why: It's because the story is so fun, just in case any of it (we know not what) might be true. That means that Ancient History owns this one as well as a bunch of other stuff that goes into our version of What We Are. You know, ontologically speaking. What an incredible pile of crap, just to say that there is an Official Version of What We Are. You know who stands to gain from anything like that: The sort who say "we were here first".

Meanwhile, over in the Israel threads, people are proposing an N-state solution because somebody was there first. Ha ha ha. Don't imagine for a moment that it's unrelated, although you can't tell the players without a pogrom.