MrMacSon

The writings have historicity; but what about the people that wrote them?

What about disputes about the historicity of the writings?

spin

When you are functionally ignorant you follow the only pointer you have: what do the experts say?

What do you do when the experts have an intrinsic bias? The experts historically come from a religious background. They are not scholars in a meaningful so much as bearers of the tradition, a tradition which they recontextualize as it is passed on. The most evidence recontextualization the tradition has been through is that which was the adjustment to a secular historiography, when secular historiography eventually replaced a christian historiography. This recontextualization involved fitting the biblical tradition into a historical framework. Taking on of this historiography was not a choice, but a necessity. It was a given part of the western cultural context. This recontextualization was thrust upon the bearers of the christian tradition, those scholars who didn't need to worry about historiography before, just the accurate interpretation of the religious text. A small number of biblical scholars through the 19th century, who had absorbed secular historiography, naturally applied it to the christian tradition, leading to the raising of the head of the beast that was the quest for the historical Jesus. Historical studies were grafted onto biblical studies. What did it change? It forced an ever increasing number of biblical scholars, who otherwise had no interest in history, to pay lip-service to it because Jesus was a priori historical. This theoretical historicity of Jesus, though never demonstrated, has become axiomatic. But don't you worry your little head about that.

Trust the experts. They should know. Just think of the experts in the 2008 Wall Street spectacle that brought down Lehmans, watched vast numbers of foreclosed mortgages and saw so much public money pissed down the drain to save the boys' club. Arguments from authority are not arguments. They are you saying that you implicitly trust experts and that you haven't got any knowledge to share. It is natural to accept that someone who is a doctor in a hospital has a role of trust, having earned that trust through a long grueling training. Even then there are quite a few cases where individuals let you down. You trust experts in biblical studies--though their training does not imply the rigor of a doctor--because that is the culture we live in, not to question people recognized as experts. However, religious studies is unlike many fields of study, because of its propensity to attract acolytes who have religious tendencies. All you need do is look at the training of nearly everyone in the field to see where they started. In the field of biblical studies you can role over and accept those biased experts if the subject doesn't mean much to you. If you have a reason for a more serious understanding of religious studies, you have an obligation to learn the basics with a keen eye using what Neil Goodman called "a built-in, shockproof crap detector".

The experts in the field of biblical studies have not earned your trust. The field exists as inherited from a pre-literate society after the fall of the Roman empire and had the stamina to resist the encroachment of the enlightenment, by adapting what was necessary in order to survive. Geology got itself going in the 19th century. Physics already had a long independent existence when the church trod on Galileo. Linguistics was born in the studies of the Indo-European family of languages through people like the Grimm brothers. Medicine slowly made its way out of quackery over a long period, but only flourished with the enlightenment and the birth of other fields. All these studies were brought into existence ultimately for secular reasons. This is not the case for biblical studies. It came out of the dark ages and it evolved in order to survive. It has not undergone the birthing that all our scholarly fields of study went through. It was in origin a tool of the church to prepare acolytes to become significant contributors to the church, be that ecclesiastical in calling, administrative, or educative, to reproduce the cycle of scholarship. All early universities came out of a church context.

The field of religious studies has not earned the status of scholarly pursuit. It got into the club by being the oldest member, around before all the others, around before modern standards of scholarship. It has survived in academia through recontextualization and already being in the club. It's experts, being mostly christians and those who aren't christians mostly trained by the christian system, are not to be trusted in anything that can be construed as essentially sensitive to the religion.

The nature of institutions are to reproduce themselves. When the standards of the institution cannot be ascertained from outside, as is usually the case in specialist education, the institution becomes mainly self-regulated, which is not necessarily a bad thing, unless the institution's field of study has never been given a baptism of fire. Nearly all fields of study have come into existence for a perceived need of the society and had to establish itself. Religious studies has never had this baptism of fire. Yet you are treating the top trained products of the institution at the same level as those in other fields. They may have the same intellectual capabilities, but does their field have the possibility of objectivity of the kind we require from all other fields? How can it? It is unlike all other fields. Its experts have a vested interest in biblical studies, either through belief or through training. You can understand that biblical studies scholars don't like such a charge, but you won't find anything other hollow denial of the type "but X and Y have a doctorate that was not from a seminary, besides, A and B are atheists". A few non-seminary trained or a few non-christian scholars don't make a trend.

It's fine to remain ignorant and point at "credible people, with real educations." But you don't want to do anything about your status and you will shit on anyone who doesn't espouse the views of those experts that you in your blinkered denial of learning defend.

There are certain ideas shared here on this forum by many, which involve the expansion of knowledge, becoming more able to deal with key ideas, and gaining some independence of thought. The approach you have projected is contrary to these, to stifle dissent, to espouse authority, to preserve the status quo. You do so through bad mouthing all non status quo ideas and you are famously unforthcoming with any evidence to support your claims. At best you vaguely refer to the name of some scholar you osmotically absorbed, or some lame video or predigested Wiki material. Great contribution.

Sabine Grant

:blank:

spin

Having just reread the text wall I posted above about 12 hours ago, I notice I should seriously have edited it before I posted, as it is filled with language errors that could confuse the intrepid reader who braved it. Sorry about that.

I just hope you understand the basic notion I offered, that trusting biblical scholars in sensitive areas of their field is not wise.

Diogenes the Cynic

1 Thessalonians is one of the 7 letters which mainstream consensus overwhelmingly accepts as authentic.

Diogenes the Cynic

In fairness, Outhouse was only quoting Peter Kirby's ECW commentary on 1 Thessalonians. If "universal" is too absolute, it's Peter's hyperbole, not Outhouse's.

Toto

Sigh. Read spin's explanation of why mainstream consensus in Biblical studies isn't worth much.

mountainman

That massive wall of text has not prevented spin from seeking refuge in the mainstream consensus on other issues such as Dura Europos and the "impeccable scholarship" of people like Rostovtzeff and the, ahem, Yale Divinity College.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Precisely. Buyer beware.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

In fairness, outhouse has to take responsibility for what he quotes and for making irrelevant comments that do not engage with evidence or deal with the issues.