ercatli

I have just come from a brief but intense discussion of what scholars say about the historical Jesus, here. The discussion seemed to me to be inconclusive - in fact, we seemed to be playing on different football fields much of the time. So I thought I would try to re-frame the discussion into one which might (for me at least) throw some more light on the subject. The "re-framing" I suggest is two-fold:

1. I suggest you approach it from the perspective of summarising to me, a follower of Jesus, why I should change my beliefs. Don't try to persuade me (which will tend to create heat rather than light), simply explain to me the reasons you suggest should be relevant to me. I won't try to persuade you either, but simply respond to those reasons.

2. I have labelled this a "friendly" discussion. Let's not call each other names, let's treat each other as friends, or perhaps as work colleagues that we have to get along with regardless. That might make it more fun, and more useful.

To get you all started, here's where I'm coming from:

(i) I am not an expert, in either the historical facts or the interpretation or contextualisation of the facts, so I rely on experts. I don't care so much whether an expert agrees with my viewpoint or not, but whether he/she has persuaded his/her peers of the validity of their arguments. Peer review is an established process in science and history and other topics, and serves us well.

(ii) My current understanding of the experts is that they can classify aspects of the life of Jesus as recorded in the gospels into three basic categories:

(1) Things they conclude are probably historical fact.
(2) Things they conclude are probably not factual.
(3) Things they are unable as historians to come to a "probable" conclusion on.

(iii) I come to my beliefs by accepting, for the moment at least, the judgments in (1) and (2) as correct, and then having the freedom to conclude on matters within (3).

(iv) On that basis, I accept the NT as reliable but not inerrant history, and accept most of the main teaching about Jesus that we are all familiar with (though I'm sure no-one agrees about everything).

So, why should I change my belief? Any takers?

Thanks.

Toto

Maybe you shouldn't change your beliefs. I don't mean to sound unfriendly, but why should anyone care what you believe in the area of religion?

aa5874

Well, if you rely on experts, are there experts that claim Jesus was not historical?

If you rely on experts, are there any experts who have used those three basic catergories and have concluded that Jesus was not historical?

If you rely on experts, are there any experts who have come to their conclusions that Jesus was not historical accepting that (1) and (2) are correct?

If you rely on experts, are there any experts who do not accept the NT as reliable, and reject the teachings of Jesus that we are all familiar with?

Do you believe only the experts that believe what you believe?

Now, experts may dis-agree, so you may still have to look at the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Some time ago, many experts may have believed the earth was flat, but perhaps only one believed it was round based on evidence. Why didn't he change his belief?

He looked at the evidence himself and forgot about the so-called experts.

Just look at the evidence yourself and you may change your belief. Experts may disagree.

gdeering

Hi,

I'd like to take up the thread, but since I am celebrating the myth of Thanksgiving I am otherwise occupied. I only want to say that that the religious are afraid of two things: the atheist and the theologian. The atheist because they can shoot down the fictional and the theologian because he has had two thousand years to make the simple fictions impossibly (and unbelievably) complex. Both seem to be the enemy of the general believer.

It is difficult to discuss religion with a Christian since there is no grounding (for a Christian) in what "authentic" Christianity is. Once the general Christian and the theologian figure things out then we can start a rational discussion.

But I'll toss one to you, assuming that we both understand that the Gospels are anonymous and produced decades or a centuries after an assumed HJ starting date - which is the first gospel and how old is Jesus when we first meet him?

Gregg

Minimalist

But the gospels are not, and were not intended to be histories. Further, we now know that they have suffered greatly from copying errors as well as deliberate changes made by the early church to come up with their doctrines ( See Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), for starters.)

Scarlett O'Hara exists in only one book as well. The fact that there is a city of Atlanta, a state of Georgia, and that there was an American Civil War does not convert fictional characters into non-fictional characters. You can study Gone With The Wind all you like for "historical tidbits" and it will not change the fact that Scarlett O'Hara is a character in a novel.

spin

ercatli, could you please try to answer the following questions (none of which are aimed at impugning anyone's integrity, only capability):

1. Would you trust analyses of Palestine and Palestinians written by most Israelis?
2. Would you trust analyses of Israel and Israelis written by most Palestinians?
3. Would you trust analyses of Soviet actions and motivations written by Cold War era Americans?
4. Would you trust analyses written by Turks about Armenian events at the start of the 20th century?
5. Would you trust analyses of Jews written by Europeans in the centuries before WWII?
6. Would you habitually trust analyses of your progressive politicians by your conservative politicians?
7. Would you habitually trust analyses of your conservative politicians by your progressive politicians?
8. Would you trust analyses of the experts who tried Galileo?
9. Would you trust analyses of the experts who banned books such as Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Ulysses, or Catcher in the Rye?
10. Would you trust analyses of the history between catholics and protestants written by protestants?
11. Would you trust analyses of the history between catholics and protestants written by catholics?
12. Would you trust analyses of early christian heresies written by early "orthodox" christians?
13. Would you trust documents you cannot date, cannot place geographically or culturally, of which you cannot say who the authors were and cannot support with any contemporary evidence?

1. Do you understand and appreciate the Orwellian notion: who controls the present controls the past?
2. Do you understand and appreciate the tendency to trust what trusted people tell you and that for various reasons trusted people don't necessarily deserve the trust?
3. Do you understand and appreciate the notion that what one believes affects what one sees?
4. Do you understand and appreciate the inherently manipulative capacity of belief to shape analysis?

1. Do you think your politicians habitually tell you the truth? Do you think when they don't that they usually deliberately lie? Do you think the world appears the same to both wings of the political spectrum?
2. Do you think it is responsible to trust expert opinion on matters that are important to you while you disqualify yourself from being able to make an informed judgment on those matters??

You'll believe what you want and trust whoever you feel comfortable believing and no-one will change that, but I didn't think that was the issue in a thread ostensibly on what so many people willfully call "the historical Jesus". The issue is dealing with information that has been shaped before it gets to you.

If I declare that Jesus is not a historical figure it does not mean that he didn't exist (though he may not have), it simply means that he cannot be shown to have existed. You'll find people who express the trite declarations of his existence you listed in the previous thread simply don't go into any tangible evidence for his existence. I don't think they perceive any real necessity to do any historical research in the matter.

History at its simplest is the processing of evidence in the effort to say what happened in the past. It is never about trust, but always about evidence. If one is not able to process that evidence just for what it is, then the results are compromised.

Now can you name one fact in the life of Jesus (at least according to your experts) that you think cannot be doubted on the evidence, stating what that evidence is?


spin

Toto

But you do not have enough expertise to know how the peer review process works in NT studies. Things are different in science, where there is an established method of conducting repeatable experiments, and possibly in some other fields.

NT studies is highly ideological, and there is the possibility at least that some will claim the mantle of a scientific consensus where it does not really exist, or is not a meaningful indicator of agreement.

I say you are wrong. There is no method for separating what is probably historical fact from what is not.

In the first place, secular historians reject the supernatural, but committed Christians refuse to rule out supernatural events.

In the second place, if you actually read what most of those "experts" say, few of them even claim that any events are probably factual. Instead, they talk about early traditions, as opposed to later alterations in the text.

So, since you do not know how to evaluate expert opinion, and don't even seem to know what it consists of, you have no reason to hold the opinions you do on the reliability of the gospels.

But don't let that stop you. You can believe what you want. Just don't think that you actually have some scholarship behind what you believe.

Steven Carr

And almost every episode in the Gospels is in each of those 3 basic categories, depending upon which expert you read.

If only we had first century Christians who put their names on documents saying they had ever heard of Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Barabbas, Joseph of Arimathea, Bartimaeus, Jairus, then experts might be able to agree on what is fact and what is fiction.

But even experts struggle to establish the historicity of people that nobody ever claimed to have heard of, before they appear in anonymous, unsourced accounts.

Biblical scholars are like people trying to find out the identity of the second gunman who shot JFK. Experts agree on the historical fact that there was a grassy knoll, but cannot agree on the identity of the second gunman.

Doug Shaver

I agree with what Toto said about this. Peer review in NT studies is not comparable to peer review in science or history.

That is probably true for any given scholar who is regarded as an expert about the life of Jesus. The problem is that there consensus among those experts in general as to what thing about Jesus' life falls into which of those categories. They do agree that category (1) probably includes (a) he was an itinerant preacher, (b) he had some disciples, and (c) he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Beyond that, they agree on hardly anything. Some think most of what the gospels report belongs in category (1), some of it in (3) and none in (2). Some think very little of it belongs in category (1). Some think most of the rest belongs in category (2), others would put most of it in (3).

The exercise of freedom is nice, but it doesn't mean much without a concomitant exercise of reason.

I can't give a sensible response that will fit in one post, but you're not up against any deadline. If you do your own research and keep your mind as open as you possibly can, then if there is an answer that could change your mind, you'll find it.

ercatli

Maybe I shouldn't, but I'm a little surprised to see you say that. You don't sound unfriendly to me, but perhaps extra courteous. I appreciate that. :wave:

I understood it to work in the standard way. When a scholar wishes to publish a paper in a reputable journal, referees review it to see that it is competent and up to the journal's standards. Their PhD theses would have been reviewed in a similar way. Are you telling me it is different to that?

I have read a number of scholars who describe a process along the lines of what I said, though I may not have said it very well - the Jesus Seminar, JD Crossan, Ed Sanders, NT Wright, M Grant, J Dickson, M Bockmuehl, C Tucket, J Paget, F Watson, M Borg, for example. But I'm not interested in defending a view at present, but in asking what your views are. On what basis do you make the above statement?

Again, I have read many who do - most of the above for example. What experts would you say do not think any events are probably factual?

I'm inviting you to show me that, and to show there are other views which we do have reason to hold.

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond. I hope you continue in the discussion.