Evangelion

Mr Kirby, the post at the top of this board invites members to suggest additional reading material. I recommend McDonald and Porter's Early Christianity and its Sacred Literature, of which a sample chapter may be read at your convenience here.

The authors are Christians (but not inerrantists) and the work is both scholarly and readable. I have found it tremendously helpful during the course of my own ventures into textual criticism.

Peter Kirby

Hi Evangelion,

Thanks for the recommendation. The authors, in the sample, say that it is "radical" to disbelieve in the supernatural stories about Jesus, as Bultmann did. Do you agree with that?

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

Hi there Mr Kirby. Thanks for checking out my recommendation.

Yes, I do. From a Christian perspective it is radical indeed, for without the supernatural, we have no religion.

Moreover, if I disbelieve the supernatural stories about Jesus, what hope do I have of convincing anybody that the resurrection was true? None whatsoever.

Can I have Christianity without the resurrection? No, of course not. That would undermine the entire theological schema.

And I do try to avoid epistemological footshots, wherever possible.

Vorkosigan

Moreover, if I disbelieve the supernatural stories about Jesus, what hope do I have of convincing anybody that the resurrection was true? None whatsoever.

'vange, I think Peter is sort of hinting that if the author thinks it Bultmann is a "radical" then the book is probably highly.....uh...conservative. Furthermore, as a matter of scholarly method, the supernatural may not be relied on for explanation. I understand why you would not rule out the Resurrection as a matter of metaphysics, but surely, as a matter of methodology, you must see that the supernatural is no explanation of anything.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

Hey Peter,

Did you get my email recommending Boadt? Can I also add Blenkinsopp's The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Old Testament (as originally recommended to me by Apikorus). I've just finished reading it, and it is outstanding, covering an enormous range of arguments from various scholars (and not afraid to take on some Minimalist views).

Joel

Peter Kirby

Celsus, I got your e-mail. I will check out these books during the summer.

Evangelion, I have known people who have religion but don't believe in the supernatural as fact. For example, you might be interested in what one Christian regards to be the matter of faith. Not everyone thinks that Christianity is a matter of believing twelve impossible things before breakfast. Indeed, Bultmann is one. Of course, the issue is rather moot for me as a non-Christian.

The study of the New Testament is the only area in which it would be regarded as "radical" to doubt supernatural stories. In the western world, orientalists are not regarded as "radical" if they deny that Muhammed split the moon in two or the miracles fo the Lord Shree Krishna. Homeric scholars are not "radical" if they doubt that the gods made the appearances among men that they did or that there were one-eyed giants in the ancient Mediterranean world. Josephan scholars are not "radical" if the disbelieve that a cow gave birth to a lamb in the Temple. American historians are not "radical" for doubting that Joseph Smith received a revelation from an angel. In the western world, it is the matter of the New Testament alone that causes some to be branded as "radical" for doubting the supernatural. Everywhere else, it is simply normal.

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion

Vork -

Don't worry, I managed to pick up that much, at least. But seriously, if they were indeed "highly conservative", they'd be inerrantists - which they most certainly are not. (I defy anyone to describe the errantist position as "highly conservative"!) Moreover, they argue against the traditional Christian view with regard to authorship of the NT mss.

Observe their comments on II Peter:

• The majority of scholars believe that 2 Peter is pseudonymous. Six major factors point in this direction.
  
  [...]
  
  The third objection to Petrine authorship concerns the reference in 3:15-16 to Paul's letters as Scripture (his statement that they are difficult to understand is simply an early confirmation of what many still think).
  
  This seems to imply that Paul's letters had already been collected together, something that scholars have until very recently considered unlikely until sometime late in the first century at the earliest. It also implies a recognized authoritative status for the Pauline Letters, something that many scholars do not consider to have been given until well into the second century.
  
  Such a late date of composition seems to be confirmed by references in 2 Peter to the apostles and fathers as "in the past," like the prophets...

"Highly conservative"? I rather think not.

Oh, I agree with you entirely. But since I am not aware of any place in which McDonald and Porter's work relies on the supernatural as a means of explanation, I suggest that the point is moot.

Evangelion

Mr Kirby -

I have no doubt of it. If you recall, my comments were restricted to a purely Christian context.

Thus:

• From a Christian perspective it is radical indeed, for without the supernatural, we [Christians] have no religion.
  
  Moreover, if I disbelieve the supernatural stories about Jesus, what hope do I have of convincing anybody that the resurrection was true? None whatsoever.
  
  Can I have Christianity without the resurrection? No, of course not. That would undermine the entire theological schema.

Others may disagree - yes, even other Christians! - but I never claimed to be speaking for anyone except myself. I'm simply presenting my view that if we remove the supernatural from Christianity, we no longer have the religion of Christianity.

LOL, for what it's worth, I don't either.

I found Bultmann rather frustrating when I first studied him at university. These days I am more sympathetic to his views. (Which is not to say that I accept them.) I understand that he saw the general principles of the Christian faith as more important than the details. He is more concerned with the importance of the Christian life, than the stories behind it.

Now this is all very well, of course, but it does have the unfortunate consequence of reducing Christianity to a set of pithy sayings on a fridge magnet.

Be that as it may, I suggest that you are overlooking a crucial aspect of the Christian context; to whit, that if we do not have a resurrection, we do not have very much left in the way of "religion." We only have Bultmann's existential reinvention of the Christian faith - which to be perfectly frank, involves very little that is uniquely "Christian."

I believe the context of this discussion has become a trifle frayed. Perhaps this would be a good time to remind you of the comment which led to our exchange.

The comment was yours, and it looked like this:

• to disbelieve in the supernatural stories about Jesus

This is not just a vague reference to "the supernatural" qua supernatural. It is a specific reference to "the supernatural stories about Jesus." Whatever you may have meant by it, I understand it as a reference to his miraculous works and his resurrection. Is it fair to say that this is what you had in mind?

Now, I must make it clear that I certainly don't view Christianity as being necessarily defined by a plethora of supernatural events, nor do I accept everything that I read at face value.

For example, do not believe that Jesus literally "cast out devils" from the afflicted, nor do I believe that "Satan" is a literal, supernatural being whose task it is to run around the place and tempt everybody, nor do I believe that Jesus was God, nor do I believe in "immortal souls" or the existence of "heaven" and "hell" as places of eternal bliss and torment respectively.

I reject the first of these ideas because I believe that the NT authors were simply using the language of the day to describe a process wholly incomprehensible to them (not knowing any better), and I reject the rest because I do not believe that the Bible actually teaches them at all. In addition to these, there are certain other supernatural aspects of the mainstream Christian view with which I take issue, and others which I simply dismiss out of hand.

But when we come down to the vital message of Christianity - that Christ died for our sins and was raised the third day - I find no good reason to reject the story, and every good reason (both rational and epistemological) to accept it.

Vinnie

I saw someone like that today when I was looking in a mirror

Actually, I believe in the "supernatural" depending on how you define it. I believe in the existence of God (supernatural claim?) but I don't believe in talking donkeys or floating axeheads.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Vinnie, I think of 'supernatural' as a synonym of 'contranatural', or something believed to be a historical event that breaks the laws of physics. So, for example, I think that one can be a deist and a naturalist.

Evangelion, you seem to be saying that doubting the supernatural is radical in a Christian context. I can accept that. I am saying that doubting the supernatural is not radical in a historical context. So I guess we are not in contradiction here.

One thing that I have found to be interesting is that Christians who do not place contravention of physical laws at the center of theology emphasize that what they do believe is a matter of faith; on the other hand, Christians who believe in the Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection as a rule emphasize that there are good arguments for the factuality of miracles and that "faith" is just "trust in God based on rational extrapolation from verified facts." Of the two positions, I find the former one much more honest.

best,
Peter Kirby