Thanks Andrew. I think I understand better now.

“I think that might explain what you took to be a contradiction in what I was saying.”

Ok. The contradiction seemed to be that we can only make sense of the past through our own present. If that were so then the meaning of our own lives would only be determined by those who come after us. Otherwise you have an inconsistent view of us and them. It may sound like nit-picking but if you are changing your language completely from synchronic to diachronic as you put it, then the only explanations you have are time-dependent and this little issue needs sorting out. What I now take your position to be is that the meaning of our present is determined (amongst other things) by what went on in the past. The meaning of the past is thus its own meaning, not merely the meaning we ascribe to it. You see, (if you look at my post on the Sir Toby’s) my position is thoroughly reflexive. Consider if, as you say, the meaning of the present is formed from what happened previousy, you need to answer the question, how is that meaning transmitted? The answer can’t simply be by pure cause and effect because in that case so much time has passed between then and now, that there cannot realistically be any hope of establishing any cause and effect at all. There needs to be another method and that method is extrapolation or, as you put it, myth. Meaning is relevant to us as intellectual beings and not only relevant but vital. Our purposes are not established merely by cause and effect but by choice. We can only choose on the basis of the extrapolations we make from reality itself. The reflexivity arises because the various extrapolations of various observers and participants from time to time become history. The universe itself can be seen as something like a self-extrapolating zip file constantly in the process of extrapolating itself. Obviously we believe that the resurrection was a real historical event in its own context but unless we give that some kind of meaning (i.e. moral value) then we cannot respond to it in any way.

But I do agree that we must start with the historical context. We can’t extrapolate from nothing and we can’t extrapolate from something that is false. This is the main reason why I am so interested in detailed exegesis of the Bible. Getting the basic text right (i.e. properly understood) must surely be a pre-requisite of all our belief.

And one of the corollaries of this emphasis is a much higher view of the authority of the church. Because we still have the same life as the church of the Acts. Creating myth, as you put it or re-creating law (because ethics is one of my main concerns), as I sometimes call it, only brings about death.