frostymama

I keep running across this phrase (mostly from Xians and the Discovery Channel) whenever the subject of Biblical History comes up. The problem is that I'm not sure enough of myself yet to know when they are simply pulling something out of their backside when they insist that something in the Bible is accepted as historical by the "experts".

1. Is there some sort of professional organization/publication (peer reviewed) similar to scientific and medical ones that filter out the obvious nutcases?

2. Is there any website or book that outlines what are truely considered mainstream theories?


I know that something doesn't necessarilly have to be widely accepted to be true, but I would just like to understand the basics of what is currently agreed upon before I get completely lost in all of the other stuff I am finding.

Viti

good questions frosty, I am interested in the answers as well

Toto

Not to my knowledge. There are peer reviewed journals, but I can't see how there is any agreement on standards. The field appears to be very contentious, because it is very ideological. I originally wrote, "and because their are no real life consequences for whether parts of the Bible are historically true" but I realize that there are some people who are prepared to start World War III based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This raises the whole question of whether history can be scientific. Check out Richard Carrier's recent thread on Historical Method. The jury is still out. I have noticed that most of the recent Biblical Criticism by younger scholars tends toward literary analysis and criticism, and avoids any questions of historicity.

There probably is some sort of scientific consensus on certain narrow issues that can be tested using existing science - issues of archeology, dating texts, paleography, etc.

But even here - look at the Shroud. Scientists have long dismissed the Shroud of Turin as a medieval forgery, including scientists associated with the Catholic Church. But there are still people arguing that it is genuine. Joe Nickell of CSICOP has debunked them, but there is a big market for believers.

The best sources are our own Peter Kirby's various websites. You can locate them through www.peterkirby.com - in particular www.earlychritianwritings.com and www.christianorigins.com (formerly didjesusexist.com). You can also consult the reading list in the sticky at the top of this forum.

If you have read the threads on whether "experts agree" that Jesus was a historical figure, you can see the contentiousness of the issue, and the lack of real standards or even definitions.

If you have questions about the historical value of any particular part of the Bible, you can always post a question here and see how much of a ruckus it raises.

frostymama

This is mainly what I am interested in at the moment. Do you know where I can find information on this?

I think I have worn out the Early Christian Writings site. I didn't know about his other sites though. Thanks for the links.

Thank you. I have been lurking in here for a long time, but I rarely have anything intelligent enough for a post. When I was a Christian I used to study every day, but it was always filtered through our doctrines. I had never even considered the possibility of anything but the absolute veracity of the Bible. I have already learned so much by lurking in this forum.

Soul Invictus

Sidebar - To the best of your knowledge is there any particular reason why the domain name was changed?

Peter Kirby

SoulInvictus, the title of the web site was modified to reflect the true, broader scope of the web site (not just HJ/JM) and after receiving a note from Mark Goodacre that the site would get more scholarly eyeballs with a title that doesn't border on sensationalist journalism. You can still access it through didjesusexist.com.

If you want to get a grasp of what kind of scholarship is taught in good universities and seminaries these days, please check out the Recommended Reading in the sticky thread at the top of the BC&H forum.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think that the articles there were tending towards broader questions than the existence of Jesus. But you'll have to ask Peter.

I think that Biblical Archeology Review is the sort of thing you are looking for, but it has blown a lot of its credibility over the Ossuary. BAR tends to market itself to Christians who are looking for confirmation of the Bible.

Archeology Magazine has published some counters to BAR, but its scope is much broader than Biblical matters.

Someone else?

diana

It always bugs me when people say they don't feel they have something intelligent to post, probably because it's almost invariably the bright and interesting people who say this but we're swamped with the stupid and dull who have post counts in the quadruple digits.

Having been a Christian who used to study every day--filtered through your doctrines or not--I assure you, you have plenty to contribute here, frosty.

Jump in. The water's fine.

d

Toto

Well, there we have it. The question of whether Jesus existed is sensationsalist journalism. That's why real historians don't want to deal with it.

Peter Kirby

The Journal of Biblical Literature has some articles online and represents high calibre scholarship.

High standards are also found with New Testament Studies, which is probably the journal to which I have referred most often in my own studies.

Novum Testamentum is right up there with NTS.

The Journal of Higher Criticism gives more leeway for studies that would be considered radical or experimental. It is edited by Darrell J. Doughty and Robert Price of Drew University.

Westar also prints periodicals such as "The Fourth R" and "Forum," the former being easier to read.

Most likely, however, you will turn to a book to get an idea of scholarly thought on a topic. I recommend getting, at a minimum, a commentary on the whole Bible (Harper or Jerome or Oxford) and an introduction to the New Testament (Brown or Schnelle or Koester).

best,
Peter Kirby