I have been thinking about this and where I would draw the line of figurative/literal historical requirement for my "psychological palliative encouragement". There seems to be great variability among Bible readers. I am happy to read much in the Bible as if it were literal historical. That is enter into its world as best I can in spite of what stretches credulity. But what must I have to be literal???
For those of us who are into Historiography, we will state that there's a difference between "historical" and "literal." In fact, today's historians do not expect historical writings to perfectly reflect the past, i.e. those events gone by which the writing describes, explains, or just expressively represents. Therefore, it should be realized that in today's Western historical mind, there is a firm distinction, academically speaking, between the actual past and "history." One is not the other, so it's always good to keep this operative distinction in mind.
I would certainly be disappointed if Jesus never really existed. But I would still believe in God.
... and this is where we differ a bit, because I can honestly say that I began as a skeptic many decades ago, and other than finding value in the historical figure of Jesus, I do not perceive, and have not directly perceived as far as I know, any sensory indication that God exists. So for me, if Jesus never really existed, I would have little to no chance to believe "God" since none of the Eastern Religions mean anything to me other than sitting as various form of philosophy to study; and Judaism or Islam do anything for me. It takes more than Lao-Tzu or Siddhartha Guatama, or Moses [alone], or Mohammad to "help me believe in God" or to give me hope in life. ... I also need to see that there is an essential coherence to a larger picture of the world, and as it goes, only the theological figure of Jesus, the Son of Man, the resurrected Son of God seems to do this for me.
Perhaps some of the difference here is in whether a person comes at this from either a more Eastern approach versus a more Western approach. (?)
Perhaps it's useful to keep this difference in mind as we not only think about hermeneutics, but also about how all of our beliefs relate to our respective cultural and civic traditions in which we live our daily lives, especially those in which a tradition may enable a person to perceive the signification of some form of mysticism, which may (or may not) in turn have a presence within a person's outlook on life.
If he existed but did not really resurrect? Again, crushed but I would still follow his teachings and revere him.
I wouldn't do so in the same way. If Jesus were just a man, even a good man, or even a good and wise man, but not the Son of God who died and literally rose again, then I wouldn't be placing my faith in him and, for me, Christianity would be crushed (or just fail to materialize in my thinking being that I've always been a skeptical guy ever since I was influenced at an early age by my dad's interest in NASA's space missions, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and my own childhood dalliance into dinosaurs.
)
If he was not divine? Well, that taps into the question of what do we mean by "divine" and to what point do we all share in it. So we get into Christology and soteriology. Back then to interpretations and context. Perhaps that is where my heresy really begins. I am rather monist, or these days we call is "non=dualism". I have a lot of latitude in my requirements. Part of that is because I have not yet resolved my view on redemption, expiation, penal substitution and other contextual apparatus.
Sure. I understand. And I am neither monist, nor dualist. I am a materialist in need of the same emotional and existential palliative that Pascal referred to, and of which----if most of us are honest----either need or will need in the not too distant future.
I derive a great deal of psychological palliative encouragement from Job believer his is purely a literary character and not historical.
You're perhaps one in million then, Akita. Most in the U.S. (and I'm guessing throughout the English and the rest of Europe) don't these days. Although, I suppose that if some parts of the Bible had to be rescinded and cut out, I do still do without the 1st chapter of Genesis or the laborious sad plight of Job's sufferings if I had to and still get by in finding faith in Christ. But then, as a historically minded person, I'd have to admit that I would only be able to do so because I bring in the various helpful deliberations put forth between various Christian theologians, historians and/or philosophers, such as the following three:
Hoffmeier, James K., Gordon John Wenham, and Kenton Sparks. Genesis: History, fiction, or neither?: Three views on the Bible’s earliest chapters. Zondervan Academic, 2015.
