Peter Kirby

My question is, do doctrinal Christians have a place at the table in the study of Christian origins?

Doctrinal Christians are those who have an a priori (relative to the subject matter of historical investigations of the beginnings of the Christian religion) commitment to the truth of certain doctrines about Christian origins, where those doctrines may range from the historical existence of Jesus, to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, all the way to the full inerrancy of the King James Bible.

When we announce the banquet of thought that is a symposium of investigation into the historical underpinnings of the Christian religion, do doctrinal Christians have an invitation?

It would seem that they do. First of all, the truth of Christian religion has not been disproved; and so, it would be unscientific to exclude what has not been disproven.

Second of all, it would seem that they do because the pluralism of participants of such a discussion can only sharpen wits and hone arguments further, given that doctrinal Christians will bring their own unique set of insights.

Third, it would seem that they do simply because it is a subject of terrible fascination to them, and so how just would it be to deny them participation in what is, after all, a happy labor of investigating their heritage?

Fourth, and somewhat opposed to the principle expressed in the first, it would seem that they do in order that they may be so impressed by historical evidence that they will be dissuaded from professing themselves doctrinal Christians.

On the contrary, Renan laid down the dictum that to write the history of a faith, the best possible position (among possible religious commitments) is to have belonged to it but belong to it no more.

I answer that, doctrinal Christians have no place at the table until and unless they have shed all their peculiar doctrines of faith concerning the subject, and thus cease to be doctrinal Christians.

The reason is that there are enough problems in the study of the subject, that one does not need the further complication of holding to be true certain propositions of historical content that were not arrived from any principles of history or science generally but rather a priori faith.

Doctrinal Christians are the leading cause of confusion and division in the academic study of Christian origins. They attempt to label their cause conservative when in fact it is intransigent, since they hold to their doctrines without regard for historical inquiry. And they set up for themselves a ghetto of study that comprises "conservative scholarship," where to be sure plenty of sound exegesis can be found, but at the same time a fundamental failure of nerve whenever basic questions of Christian origins rear their head. Those whose unflinching quest for historical accuracy knows no limits of inquiry can have no truck with intransigents.

There is no liberal and conservative scholarship. There is only scholarship. And scholarship must be fundamentally an exercise in learning, not apologetics of any kind. To the extent that doctrinal Christians are committed to apologetics, to a defense of inflexible doctrines, they are excluding themselves from scholarship.

To answer the first objection, Christian religious faith simply has no place in the historian's toolkit, except as a set of propositions and behaviors ascribed to men and women. Besides, I would also consider excluded from the table those whose religious commitments would necessitate the affirmation or negation of definite historical propositions, such as doctrinal Muslims.

To answer the second objection, it is absurd. You don't get the best use of a blade by stabbing it in to dead wood, which is what doctrinal Christianism is, but by clanging against another blade where the discussion may cut both ways. With a doctrinal Christian, the discussion cannot cut against the grain of the doctrines, so it is an endless matter of holding down the fort against assault for them. They are strangers to the concept of sparring on the subject for pleasure and edification. Furthermore, there are so many people who are not doctrinal Christians but who have a definite commitment to the study that it is perfectly appropriate for the banquet to carry on without them.

The answer to the third objection is that their interest is ahistorical, and that this further disqualifies them from participation.

The answer to the fourth is that it is not the business of history to disprove religions. A sensible religionist, and of course a sensible historian, would already realize that. The business of history is to use the remains of the past as the meager evidence of the past that it is, no more and no less.

It is impossible to do that in the looming shadow of a Crucified God, who demands its devotees to take captive every thought to His service. Evidence is, instead of being evidence without shame or apology, merely a matter of either 'evidences' for doctrines or 'falsehoods and lies' touted against them. This is like trying to appraise the origin of an artifact when there is someone who will see everything in terms of his precious preconceived notion that it must belong to the Ming dynasty. That person's notion of evidence in the subject is necessarily warped.

Therefore, let noone enter here who understands not methodological naturalism, the necessity of using experience and induction and the whole historical method as the only bases of adhering to historical propositions.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Nice try, Peter. Simply an attempt to declare by fiat that the Bible is not true. And try to create a pseudo-intellectual justification for the a priori rejection.

Here is a question for you Peter.

If the Bible is in fact true (historically, geographically, spiritually, you can choose the fields) how would your proposed methodologies so discover ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Peter Kirby

You misrepresent me terribly. Do you want to try again?

What will be uncovered, will be uncovered. That is the whole point.

Steven Avery

Peter, actually I believe I got to the heart of the matter, sans fluff.

You might try again to answer my question.

Could your proposed presups of methodological naturalism 'uncover' the Bible as true ?

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
This is a similar question to one that I ask the proponents of modern 'scientific' textual criticism. How would they ever know the pure and perfect Bible (if there is one .. some TC people say yes, others say no, others say dunno, the question is addressed more to those evangelical-TC folks who sort of say yes) if they ever ran into it, using their theories?

Peter Kirby

You are wrong. You misrepresented me. Are you incorrigible?

You said that my post is "an attempt to declare by fiat that the Bible is not true" when it is in fact a demonstration that proper history is free entirely of the opposite "fiat".

History is free, but doctrinal Christians are fettered.

I answered your question; history will uncover history, whatever that is. If that history is the existence of Noah, it will uncover the existence of Noah, etc.

Steven Avery

Thank you for your nonanswer.

Apparently you do realize that you are attempting to set up a controlling structure that must find the Bible (including its supernaturalism) as not true. Your glasses are dark.

However you simply will not admit the truth (or untruth) of the nature of your personally-approved methodology.

The question remains unanswered, despite the attempt to extract one component.

Could your proposed presups of methodological naturalism 'uncover' the Bible as true ?

Shalom,
Steven

Roger Pearse

I don't think so. I think he got you bang to rights.

Your post read like something concocted at some Nazi institute of Jewish studies and updated to read 'Christian' rather than 'Jew'.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Peter Kirby

In the words of Pilate, "what I have written, I have written." You want to pretend that you have a Socratic method of cutting past what I have written, by posing an "unanswered" question. I will answer it for the n-th time. Historical method will uncover history. If that history coincides with the truth of the Bible, then such will be the case. Your erstwhile inability to understand that answer is astounding. Perhaps doctrinal Christians not only have difficulty applying historical method in this subject, but grave difficulty understanding the concept of historical method and the aim of history generally. But to judge from one sad case is dangerous.

I will make a last-ditch effort to aid your understanding. The aim of Biblical Criticism & History is not to find "the Bible is true" or "the Bible is false." It is to engage in biblical criticism and to do biblical history. And of course, any commitment to "the Bible is true" across the board will impede such because it proscribes certain avenues of thought that are naturally part of the endeavor. I would say the same of any commitment to "the Bible is false" across the board, except that I have not encountered a person with an a priori commitment to the Bible being false across the board.

"But can you prove the Bible true? Huh? Huh? Can ya? Can ya? Huh? Huh?"

You are the one who misses the point. The point is that your commitment to that proposition "the Bible is true" gives you blinders. Now, perhaps (!) the methods of human understanding and reason are incapable of showing the proposition that "the Bible is true." How much more fucked up would it be to believe it then?

I put the (!) there because the methods of human understanding and reason do allow us to broach your proposition of "The Bible is true," though perhaps not more woolly ones. We can evaluate those claims such as the historical existence of Noah, etc. And if we are not convinced by a blind faith in the Bible that there was a Noah, and that Jonah did swallow the whale if the Bible so declares, we might find that there was no historical Noah, etc. Yet, it would be no skin of my teeth if there were a Noah. The problem is entirely in the court of the believers, whose beliefs interfere with sound judgment and reasoning.

I have to elaborate at this length because Steven doesn't get the simple truth that what history uncovers, it uncovers. I understand. He's a doctrinal Christianist.

Peter Kirby

Well I know where you stand on this, Roger. I'll back my argument though.

If you think Steven was bang on, I conclude that you are just spouting off. He didn't get the point; he is wrong.

ksen

So you argue that only doctrinaire non-Christians can fairly investigate the history of Christian origins?

That makes about as much sense as relying only on Doctrinal Christians to fairly investigate the origins of atheism.

Doctrinal Christians are not the only ones engaged in apologetics.