Tenorikuma

Thanks for the recommendation!

neilgodfrey

I have no problem with 'historical criticism' or its methodology and I have never called plausibility 'faith'.

I simply mean that there is an ideological/cultural assumption that certain events are historical -- or a faith that they are historical.

Indeed, in the case of OT studies archaeology and the application of the same historical methods that are applied to other ("nonbiblical") areas of ancient history have demonstrated the same in that area. Moses, the Exodus, the Flood, Abraham and the other patriarchs, the united kingdom of Israel -- these were not historical at all, but had long been only assumed to be so. Abraham as a person is properly the subject of mythical, anthropological, literary studies, but not "historical criticism".

The only way NT scholars sustain the myth of historicity and avoid seeing their historical interests (Jesus and early church events) going the way of the OT patriarchs is by constructing their own unique sets of "historical tools". At least one NT scholar acknowledges this and says NT "historians" are "pioneers" in the wider field of history because of their innovative approaches.

NT historical criticism exists in a bubble of its own. It's very existence is arguably indebted to cultural/ideological assumptions that certain events are 'historical'.

Albert Schweitzer seems to have identified this as a potential issue when he pleaded with his peers to rebuild Christianity on a new metaphysic, lifting it off its feet of clay, viz. vulnerable historical events.

neilgodfrey

It's a little while since I've read Zindler's "The Jesus the Jews Never Knew" but didn't Zindler argue that Mead and others were wrong to find Jesus in the Talmud?

neilgodfrey

Shafer's book is very detailed, but there are questions Zindler raised that he does not address. I understand Zindler will be writing a response to Shafer in due course.

outhouse

Thank you for the clarification.



As much as I would like to disagree, one cant in this area. There are those biblical scholars who follow apologetics a little too closely and I do see the bias in this field. I would like to also note that the debate over the United Monarchy with Minimalist and Maxamilist has much less bias then before with the best and brightest somewhere in the middle and such biases are now obvious.

With that said, there is still bias in the field and faith is a problem for some

I would have to agree.

This is where I personally disagree. Not all scholarships follow these older methods. There are plenty around that do fit that exact mold though. I just dont know many people who actually give them any credibility.

I think Ben Witherington fits your bill pretty close though.



Yeesh, the great grandfather of modern scholarships.

Anyone a little more recent?

MrMacSon

I think NT scholarship goes beyond "assumption", and increasingly so.

Historical 'scholarship' around the NT shows an overwhelming failure to apply the principles of the Historical Method; particularly proper attribution of source to most, if not all, historical texts.

I think most NT scholars have had confirmation bias, and currently are increasingly mendacious.

For one "NT scholar" to say "NT 'historians' are 'pioneers' in the wider field of history because of their innovative approaches" is an admission of this.

neilgodfrey

Can you cite for me any NT scholar who you think does not fit the bill? The most recent work I have read on current NT historical Jesus scholarship is Keith and Le Donne's "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity". That illustrates my point to a tee.

No. And that's my point. I haven't read anything so sensible from the faith-brigade that's any more recent.

neilgodfrey

New Testament scholarship has a long way to go to catch up with the advances made in "OT scholarship" by the likes of Thompson ever since he demolished the historicity of the Patriarchs.

A few like James Crossley seem to think they are playing catch-up, but they fail to see they are really running in the opposite direction from the way Thompson, Davies, Lemche, White and co pointed.

stephan huller

Maybe I am still out in the proverbial darkness here but why do both sides insist that any degree of certainty can be found with respect to the existence or non-existence of Jesus. I have always been interested - and very partial - to the Marcionite notion of the ministry of Jesus as being understood to be the descent of a god from heaven in the year 6000 AM. I think that what Adamantius reports in De Recta in Deum Fide is a legitimate historical opinion - in other words, this historical understanding was accepted by 'real people' in the second century.

The tradition is clearly 'historical' in the sense that it understood a particular year in history to be the year of Jesus's descent. I think that year was 20 CE (which jibes with the pagan Acts of Pilate). But the catholics seemed to have accepted 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius.'

Whatever the case may be there seems to be a paradoxical situation where - at least according to some early Christians - a supernatural being 'appeared' on earth in a particular year relative either to the Creation of the World (a Jewish or Jewish-Christian opinion) or relative to the reign of Tiberius (a Gentile opinion).

I don't know if this historical understanding - a supernatural being 'in' real historical time - allows anyone to accept or reject the existence of a human 'crucified one.' It demands agnosticism. For either (a) the catholics were right and the heretics 'exaggerated' (to use the Islamic term for those who did the same thing with Muhammad) the greatness of a real historical person or (b) it was all made up in some later period (because supernatural beings can't take on the appearance of human beings).

I can see arguments either way. But again, if this debate wasn't so hyper-partisan already, I'd say the only reasonable position is agnosticism. We can't be absolutely sure that 'some guy' (whether or not he was actually named 'Jesus') was behind this 'myth' or that 'some guy' just made up a story about the events which led up to the crucifixion of a god - or the 'apparent' crucifixion of some god - in a particular year.

outhouse

I follow cultural anthropology more so then scholarships, and could never follow just one.

Johnathon Reed I like as well of some of Crossan. the late Marvin Meyers, Candida, Some Ehrman. I try and stay more modern but even these guys and gals refer to older scholarships like E.P.Sanders, Mieier, Schweitzer, ect.

I dont mind bias in details, as every scholar can and does build their own models of speculated details. Which has nothing to do with the historical core they all follow for the most part.


For some reason those two dont impress me yet, maybe I need to read more of his work. What I did read he seems to attribute way too much through specualtion regarding the Mary figure and relationship with the Jesus character. I quit answering Le Donne's emails after I found out how much he wanted for his online classes. Im not sure he gained enough following to follow through with his classes.

Im sure he has value and much I could learn from his work, I choose my personal time diferently.

I admire his fight for “academic freedom” against fundamentalist